Slitherine

As an umpire I could see wide ranges of tactics between new players and relatively old hands. For instance it was said at the lower tables that the game felt unity whereas upper tables rarely say this. I think one possible explanation of this is that you might at first glance feel that it can be played a bit like 7th, but in fact the game is set up very differently from this, and to make an army work you need to really coordinate BGs into major wing attacks etc. You cannot rely on 1 or 2 small BGs of power troops (although you can get that illusion when you first read the rules).

When I first played DBM I got murdered because I did things that seemed reasonable based on 5th and 6th (my heritage) only to find that a LH in the flank could kill 4 mongol HC with one lucky dice roll. I learned pretty quickly and did all right in the end.

What we have tried to do is to encourage historically accurate tactics as much as we can, which is a major mindset shift from recent chss-like abstractions. It takes a fair while to get a feel for the odds of what happens in different situations. We have deliberately structured the rules to be a long string of outcomes so that 3x3x3x3x3 = far too many to figure out in ones head. Those of you willing to build a 10,000 run simulator can get a pretty good assessment of the odds for various test situations. However we wanted, and have got, a game where one learns a great deal by feel and experience.

My personal view on experience so far is that it takes about 5 games to get comfortable with the rules, about 20 to get a decent feel for the odds and get tactics in hand and about 50 to start to see all the nuances and start to place accurate bets throghout the game. In that sense I find the learning curve a bit like poker - at which I am in the middle zone.

To give an example. Steve with his WOR English agreed a draw with Eric's Hungarians (IIRC). I was near the table and asked why they had given up. Steve said he couldn't come out to fight due to the knights and cavalry, the Nugarians that they couldn't go in. So having played many more games I took a risk and boldy told them that I thought the WOR had an 80% chance of winning from the current situation. I don't think either believed me so I asked if I could take over the army for the hour remaining.

Taking a big picture view, I reckoned I could see a play where I risked losing 2 BGs of WOR and had a decent chance of catching 5 BGs of Hungarians. About 40 minutes later and we agreed a 32-0 instead with the knights broken (not after some real risks taken to do it though), 2 Cv BGs trapped and 2 LH Bgs conered for 10APs and the army. In FOG it is much mor about taking such battlewide big bets than about working out that 1 BG is very likely to break 1 opponent.

I am sure Steve and Eric will post something up about it at some point. The main difference between me and them is that with all the rule writing and 50 games under my belt I have a much better sense of the odds and of the tactics that will maximise them - that's all. Having played lots of games it really is a big mindset shift to get into a good FOG head. That should be part of the fun of the next 2 years for everyone.

As authors we are considering a number of tweaks atpresent after Britcon, and agreed 3 or 4 on Sunday. However what we have to do is gaze ahead and try to assess whether the issues raised are ones that will last when we all get 6 competitions of experience under our belts. The upper tables of players with the most experience give the best guide to that.

I would also add that - as long as nothing major is broken - part of the fun is playing vs 1 and figuring out finally what does work best then to get a calibration tweak in vs 2 that lets us all have fun doing it again. That is how DBM 1, 1.3, 2, 3, 3.1 added new life...and its pretty hard to say which of these is right ........ and there are various views as to which is the best.

Si

As the WoR player, I felt that with the Hungarians in a position to flank my battle line if I came forward, I ran the risk of being rolled up. I think this was DBM-think, and also a failure to internalise the extra speed of foot under FoG, and that it's not as easy to reposition troops in FoG as it is in DBM. I'd also completely forgotten that missile cavalry in single line can't voluntarily evade so can get stuck if they're not charged. As Simon says, I'd not assessed the odds correctly, and as a result was too cautious. Over the weekend I also didn't get the support between the MAA/billmen and the longbows right. Nonetheless, I had six really enjoyable games against good opponents and enjoyed Britcon very much. As a first-timer I wasn't really sure quite what to expect.

So, I've still a long way to go with FoG but look forward to enjoying the journey. If anybody would like a game in the South Shropshire/Herefordshire area, please get in touch.

As one of those inhabiting the lower tables for most of the competition I can confidently say that I did find the system very 'unity'.

You can call a group of 4 bases a battle group or a mega unit but it acts as a single entity and can readily be visualised as a small unit.

Add to that, the fact that formations of Spear or Pike blocks can change direction by 90% relatively easily and reface their battle line just doesn't seem historical to me for anything more than a single unit.

Plus when a battle group breaks through the enemy line and pursues into an exposed position where it can get mugged by units that have moved to the left and right specifically to attack the exposed flanks this seems to be a relatively low level of simulation.

Forgettig the first 4 games, and focussing on just the final two games, I ended up with individual battle groups turning round and dodging the enemy - even my elephants.

The speed of the game is faster than DBM - IMO this gives the impression that the distances are less, and as a consequence the units are smaller.

I should say at the end of Saturday I was very fed up and pretty grumpy - (sorry!) I couldn't pass a cohesion test under almost any circumstance and even when I fought on a ++POA, it was me taking off bases and getting disrupted.

Sunday was better however.

The 5th game did show me how ineffective Skirmisher shooting at big units of Hvy infantry was. Here's a tactic for playing for a draw - keep rolling the dice in ineffectual combats as it takes up game time.
I had 10 LH shooting at a 3 element wide unit of 6 hvy armoured foot with 3 Ps support. You need 3 hits to force a test. In 5 or 6 attempts I forced 1 test, which was passed with ease. My opponent needed to roll badly on the CT dice to suffer any consequence and then badly on his bolster attempt. I couldn't get any more shooting on this one unit and even the fact of the -1 for having a table edge only comes into effect when you force a test - no test no -1.

I will give the system more time and see if Simon is right, but I came to this set with a wealth of good will and a desire for them to be the true successor to DBM. If newbies have my expereinces it might be a long job persuading them to stick with the rules.

interesting comments. I find the caution interesting, not knowing the game sit at all, but I can imagine an awful lot of gamers opting for up the gut charges especailly where odds are harder to calculate. Whereas the science of dbm detered that. Frankly it drove many of those gamers to other game systems.

I think this is one of the hard selling points of FoG is it is very un-dbm-like. Which will create bigger hurdles for dbm players but increase attraction to non-dbm players.

Not everyone is going to be happy at their first attempt - and any first time game with bad luck tends to sour ones view. I started my DBM career getting duped by a more experienced player over some minutie of the rules that I didn't fully grasp and it almost put me off the game and had me playing 6th the last 12 years.

And we also have to accept that not everyone will like FOG long term. Its the nature of anything .... we have taken some radical steps in how the rules are set up. DBM added new players and also lost players too. All rule sets do. If we all liked the same things then a boring world it would be indeed!

It is good to hear that Gareth had a more enjoyable Sunday ... certainly his Saturday had some dice from hell ... which if you don't have a good feel for the odds and are doing things that are risky as a result, is always going to create some mayhem. I am sure it did feel unity as a result Gareth. The difference from previous unit based rules is - in my view - that they are set up to make you need to combine the BGs into co-ordinated wing, centres, reserevs for them to be effective; rather than relying on a few powerful independent units. And its a big picture playing of the odds that matter rather than local supriority. This is what I observed the top tables doing much more than newer players - understandably.

Of course that is a fairly subtle difference and as soon as you group 2 bases into a formation that has to stick together it is "unity" by default. There are rally only 2 ways to have a game - play with bases or play with blocks of bases. Sowe also have to accept that impression as a consquence of deciding as authors that real battles wer fought in such blocks rather than as 100 small blocks which bases represent.

As authors we need to hover above the specifics and the overall position is that we had 27 players of whom 80%+ were very happy with their weekend and the rules. Similarly at Roll Call and at Usk and at Leeds.

So overall the goodwill seems well placed even if a few local disasters leave a few individuals unsure. Keep the faith for now and see how it goes is all one can say really.

Si

shall wrote: The difference from previous unit based rules is - in my view - that they are set up to make you need to combine the BGs into co-ordinated wing, centres, reserevs for them to be effective; rather than relying on a few powerful independent units. And its a big picture playing of the odds that matter rather than local supriority. This is what I observed the top tables doing much more than newer players - understandably.

Of course that is a fairly subtle difference and as soon as you group 2 bases into a formation that has to stick together it is "unity" by default. There are rally only 2 ways to have a game - play with bases or play with blocks of bases. Sowe also have to accept that impression as a consquence of deciding as authors that real battles wer fought in such blocks rather than as 100 small blocks which bases represent..

Si

Linking to other threads and another comment of Simons about battle lines and the "unity" feel of the game I thought it might be interesting to look back at the piccies of the games on my website from this viewpoint.

Especially against mounted armies I believe they show I was doing a lot more "BL" and "keeping in lines" manevering than my opponents, but they seemed to be gaining significant advantages over my unweildy formation (or certainly were not disadvantaged) by acting as "units" and zooming off independantly in different directions. In fact, whenever I was having to break up my line it was usually only to avoid being totally outmaneuvered by independantly acting enemy units.

I also cant really say I felt I was facing co-ordinated "wings" - other than having one of my wings skirmished out of the game fairly often!!

Conversely there seemed to be plenty of "one good unit breaks through" moments. It was pond life gaming for the most part I admit but I'm still skeptical that this "strong benefit to acting in BLs and wings" is as strong as you seem to think?

tim
www.madaxeman.com

Interesting - we'll have to see. My observation - but without photo to show it I admit - is that the unity bit you mention is more skirmishers which makes sense but take your points.

Si

madaxeman wrote:Especially against mounted armies I believe they show I was doing a lot more "BL" and "keeping in lines" manevering than my opponents, but they seemed to be gaining significant advantages over my unweildy formation (or certainly were not disadvantaged) by acting as "units" and zooming off independantly in different directions. In fact, whenever I was having to break up my line it was usually only to avoid being totally outmaneuvered by independantly acting enemy units.

Indeed, but this is realistic historical behaviour for horse archers.

shall wrote:Interesting - we'll have to see. My observation - but without photo to show it I admit - is that the unity bit you mention is more skirmishers which makes sense but take your points.

Si

Well, I was always outnumbered by skirmishers - mainly on account of having none - but I felt it was more often that that.

Have a look at the last game - that was elephants and heavy cavalry - and also against Dave R there was a unit of foot spearmen who "ran away" from my army after breaking through unit-on-unit !

Against all the cavalry-rich armies I faced their units seemed to be maneuvering independantly.

Frai enough Tim. I'll take a proper look next week Tim once I have a mo.

Must say I made the BL/coordiantion point more from observation of the upper tables where people were perhaps more used to the game.

Si

Tim has a point here. Most of my games start out with 3 BL of 3-4 BGs and the rest individual BGs. Once the BGs close so that double moves are no longer possible or for tactical reasons the BLs break up pretty quickly. After about the 3 moves or so I would say I don't have any BLs at all.

Of course you could argue that the BGs are made up of many units and are therefore BLs in their own right. But regardless the game does have a unity feel. At least at 800 pts it does. It will be interesting to see how this works at 1000pts and beyond.

Of course this is no different in reality to 6th or 7th. And personally I don't really mind. Makes a pleasant change from the elementy feel that DBM gives!

bddbrown wrote:Tim has a point here. Most of my games start out with 3 BL of 3-4 BGs and the rest individual BGs. Once the BGs close so that double moves are no longer possible or for tactical reasons the BLs break up pretty quickly. After about the 3 moves or so I would say I don't have any BLs at all.

Of course you could argue that the BGs are made up of many units and are therefore BLs in their own right. But regardless the game does have a unity feel. At least at 800 pts it does. It will be interesting to see how this works at 1000pts and beyond.

Of course this is no different in reality to 6th or 7th. And personally I don't really mind. Makes a pleasant change from the elementy feel that DBM gives!

There you go - endorsement from a good player as well as from a crap one for this POV.

However I suspect "I like it because it feels like 6th and 7th all over again" wasn't quite the reaction the authors were hoping for.

Not quite sure what fixes this - or even if its just one of those things that doesnt need fixing, as its just me harking back for a different game I'm now nored of anyway? Whether its simply more numbers of troops on table, or a combination of tweaks - BG's being able to share VMD rolls when charging plus something in command and control, as the apex level of organisation is actually the BG - BL's are simply a way of moving BGs twice, and non-allied Generals have no real "line of command" function ?

I do keep coming back to (optional) "fixed formations" as a means of creating a higher level of organisation above BG that affects the way you move, fight - and lose - parts of the army, and they would give generals some more practical game-level attachment and function. This could then address the scale issue both semantically (ie "Commands" would then be a term people use to describe the games progress) and literally (organisation and action on the tabletop) ?

tim
www.madaxeman.com

( I also keep wondering about a house mod for "FoG with Pips" - 1 pip to move anything (BG or BL), CT's stay as is but Generals can allocate any unused pips to apply as deductions from any CT rolls in their command radius that bound? But thats too reactionary, isnt it )

I'm not harking back to the world of 6th and 7th. More harking away from the elementy nature of DBM. Personally I quite like the feel of FoG as it is and would not want to see any changes. BLs have their place, but once you close to fighting range you need to make sure that the BGs work together at a tactical level. That does not always mean keeping them as a BL.

I'm not harking back to the world of 6th and 7th. More harking away from the elementy nature of DBM. Personally I quite like the feel of FoG as it is and would not want to see any changes. BLs have their place, but once you close to fighting range you need to make sure that the BGs work together at a tactical level. That does not always mean keeping them as a BL.

This is pretty much what I am observing so far across the 200 games at Usk Britcon and Leeds. Of course superficially one cannot dodge the unit point the minute one drops elements as the basis for the rules - its an automatic effect we haveto live with. Our objective is not to dodge that but to have people feel it is different once they have tried it and for that news to spread. From the otuset it is the feel we have aimed to get good from a combination of:

1) fun to play
2) speed of play
3) fairly easy to understand
4) good historical feel
4) distinctive play feel all of its own

Overall feedback would suggest things are in pretty good shape vs those objectives.

Of course one can argue forever about the last 10%, but the 90% feels in good shape considering the exercise started from a blank piece of paper 18 months ago.

Si

Tim has a point here. Most of my games start out with 3 BL of 3-4 BGs and the rest individual BGs. Once the BGs close so that double moves are no longer possible or for tactical reasons the BLs break up pretty quickly. After about the 3 moves or so I would say I don't have any BLs at all.

I think this is an excellent point - and it is certainly how most of the games I see start and end. However, is it such a bad thing? I would have thought it represents the gradual disintegration of a battle line quite nicely.

I think it also depends upon what army you are using. If you are using Greeks, then it is fairly important to maintain a solid line of spearmen, if you are using Skythian then you want much more variability and unevenness in the lines. Again, I quite like this look and feel of the game.

I am really enjoying FoG at the moment, so wouldn't want too much change. I don't think you need pips as the generals quite adequately mimic this limit on movement.

That's the way I see too Dave and no its not a bad thing - it is the intent in fact to represent how battles did seem to start and look through their evolution.

In my own games, most of the time multi-BGs end up fighting side by side - sometimes getting there as BLs, sometimes my manourving as BGs into position to support each other well. The point beign that I never find myself rely on 1 or 2 power units with litle to support them in FOG. It tends to look more unity the more Cv and Skirmisher oriented the army is, less so the more HF I have - which makes sense. My Britons and Spartans rarely look "unity" at all, my huns much moreso once the battle evolves.

The difference is that it doesn't act "unity" to me - as the mechanisms force much more cooridnation between the "mega-units" so that a few power units cannot carry all before them on their own. This is a contrast to 5th, 6th sand 7th which I played a fair bit and therefore gives a different feel and challenge. Alas that effect to me is a lot more subtle than simply how they are represented as figures and bases.

Could may be wrong - after all the stream started merely an observation as the one person able to take a good look at most of the 100 games. It got to a few pages of nice debate....

Si

The difference is that it doesn't act "unity" to me - as the mechanisms force much more cooridnation between the "mega-units" so that a few power units cannot carry all before them on their own

That is certainly the way that I see games evolving. If you do have two or three power units and try and bash your way through then you are likely to either

a) not have much support and then watch your flanks disintegrate and then watch your power units get hit in the flank, which means they should lose

b) only going to break two or three units of your opponent, which is not enough to win the game

If anything I think you need combined arms so that you can cope with most stuff that gets thrown at you. Some things don't change...

On the other hand at BritCon all I had were three BGs of Knights - the rest of the army was unprotected cavalry, light horse and light foot.

bddbrown wrote:On the other hand at BritCon all I had were three BGs of Knights - the rest of the army was unprotected cavalry, light horse and light foot.

I wouldn't know ... I was busy playing Dave Ruddock down at the bottom of the pond in round 5 so I never got to see the top players in action !

bddbrown wrote:On the other hand at BritCon all I had were three BGs of Knights - the rest of the army was unprotected cavalry, light horse and light foot.

Who were closely supporting the knights.

It was precisely this closely supporting combined arms approach that made your army effectively invincible against my Sassanid army. My armoured cavalry could not get into contact with or even chase off your unprotected cavalry without being squished by your knights. With my heavy cavalry unable to intervene, your shooting power was sufficient to drive off my light foot then shoot down my elephants.