Slitherine

Well, I´ve finished my first reading and, being rude , as JD has asked us, I can only say that I´m quite impressed:
a) Rules very good written. Clear and unambiguos sentences, but still gentle for a non-native english speaker, unlike other game rules.
b) I think the structure of the chapters is fine: starting with general rules which apply moreless during the whole bound, and then describing each phase with more detail. Anyway, I missed the rules for terrain set until I read the fouth appendix. Well, this may make this aspect of the game seem less important, IMO. I would consider if these rules should be described at the beginning in order to make the rules go through the same steps than a normal game.
c) I have not been able to see any diagrams. A line of text describing it is all I can see. Were they ready? Should they had been printed with the rest of the text?
d) I like tips. They give conclusions that help you to check if you understood the rule correctly.
e) Now, about the quality of the rules, I DO like them. I think they allow a very good ´simulation´of each troop and its behaviour on the battlefield. The three different combat phases solved perfectly the differences between tough shock troops and steady troops.
f) The BG concept is very accurate. I guess battles will look just like those blue and red squares that you can find in, for expample, any Osprey Great Battles book.
g) Rules for generals are just great! You have to work a lot with them! This gives players a chance to show their best, indeed.

Well, next week I´ll write my thoughts about my first games, in Jaen.

I tried to make a technical evaluation. Rude enough?

Hehehe, well, I'm sure glad you posted here, and I'm sure all the other non-beta-testers are too. You've given us a fascinating and very encouraging glimpse at some things we'd not yet been told about. My thanks for that

But Iain might prefer that comments from beta testers be posted in the beta forums

Sorry, I'm a born smart-ass. I couldn't resist

Since I can´t still post there, I´ve commented only aspects that have been already published by authors and without giving exact information of its contents, only opinions about it. Old smart-ass too.

"When staying at the Hotel Beirut, request a room on the ocean side rather than the pool side, as this is less often hit by artillery."

--Holidays in Hell, by P.J. O'Rourke


Just to change from ancient times, a modern comment.

As the artillery was placed on the inland hills more or less parallel to the sea it was practically impossible to hit the sea front rooms, more so if they were on lower floors.

By the way it is the Mediterranean Sea not an ocean.

I was in Beirut in the '80, to work not in holiday.

Regards
Maurilio

Hope the rules play as well as they read.

If they have stuck with the piddly little DBM move distances and shooting ranges then it's never going to attract a wider following than the DMX crowd. Lots of small moves leads to cautious calculated game play - not at all the spirit of a highly risky battle (and an edge of the seat game).

Still that worry aside it's great to see wargaming come out of the nerdy corner and get some serious comercial backing.

Gunrunner wrote:If they have stuck with the piddly little DBM move distances and shooting ranges then it's never going to attract a wider following than the DMX crowd. Lots of small moves leads to cautious calculated game play - not at all the spirit of a highly risky battle (and an edge of the seat game).

What? So you think it's best to charge in the first turn? Or start in shooting range a la Warhammer? Or maybe it's best to have pursuit moves that take you from one side of the table to the other like DBR. I can understand that the micro-management of elements in DBM feels wrong and too good for an army of Ancient or Medieval times, but hopefully the battlegroup concept fixes that. Also, the manoeuvering before the crunch was the time was quite often where generals made their most important decisions.

FWIW FoG movement distances are higher than their DBM equivalents but nothing like Warhamer ones.

A few examples:
Heavy foot move 3 MU's (inches or 25mm movement units)
Cavalry move 5
Light horse move 7

Bow and Crossbow have a extreme range of 6 MU's and effective range of 4

Hope that helps

Gunrunner wrote: Still that worry aside it's great to see wargaming come out of the nerdy corner and get some serious comercial backing.

That is nice, isn't it? Although it means that we will all get took for higher prices, etc. But I think it will be worth it for the higher production values.

Marc

hammy wrote:FWIW FoG movement distances are higher than their DBM equivalents but nothing like Warhamer ones.

A few examples:
Heavy foot move 3 MU's (inches or 25mm movement units)
Cavalry move 5
Light horse move 7

Bow and Crossbow have a extreme range of 6 MU's and effective range of 4

Hope that helps

Wait, wait, wait...are you saying all bow and crossbow units have the same range? Biblical-era simple bow and Agincourt-era longbow have the same range?

If that's indeed the case, could someone please explain to me for the love of god, WHY?

possum wrote:

hammy wrote:FWIW FoG movement distances are higher than their DBM equivalents but nothing like Warhamer ones.

A few examples:
Heavy foot move 3 MU's (inches or 25mm movement units)
Cavalry move 5
Light horse move 7

Bow and Crossbow have a extreme range of 6 MU's and effective range of 4

Hope that helps

Wait, wait, wait...are you saying all bow and crossbow units have the same range? Biblical-era simple bow and Agincourt-era longbow have the same range?

If that's indeed the case, could someone please explain to me for the love of god, WHY?

The range isn't what matters. Each weapon has its own POA (Point of Advantage) to reflect its advantages and disadvantages against a variety of targets. The greater the POA, the more likely you are to inflict casualties. So, for example longbow is by far the best missile weapon around while normal self bows are good against unprotected targets but get steadily worse as the armour gets heavier. Crossbows are somewhere in the middle which, I assume, is to reflect their lower rate of fire and greater penetration power.

Why? To keep things simple I suppose. Besides, why would you want to compare an Egyptian bow with a HYW longbow?

Julian

Thanks for giving an indication of the move distances Hammy.

It does seem to confirm my fears if light cavalry only move 7" and long bows have a max range of 6" and the game is to be played on a 6x4 foot table. How many turns (command opportunities) do you need to get heavy infantry from deployment into battle? And how many turns does that give your opponent to react?

My pitch is for large move distances and shooting distances that are not just a slight extension of hand to hand combat. You can rationalise this in all sorts of ways (as you can for any rules argument) but it boils down to encouraging a more exiting game where each turn presents new options. A few example rule sets where it works:

Volley and Bayonet: infantry move 16 inches!
Fire & Fury: infantry move 12" or 16" by road
Warfare In the Age Of Reason: infantry skirmishers 16", line 8"
Warmaster: infantry 8" and may move multiple times in the same turn
Armati: heavy infantry 6", warband 9"
Even Flames Of War has infantry moving 6" (large compared to tanks moving just 12")

It seems anything less than 6" just isn't worth the bother

Carlos, don't think I advocate charging in on turn one. Having larger move distances encourages rash players to act rashly: balanced players will use appropriate movement to keep in formation until they have an advantage. Cautious players will still move slowly because they fear making a mistake. It's my opinion that DBM move distances don't allow any players to be rash. It also hides the weakness of cautious players by giving them time to calculate and adjust slightly each turn. The Pip dice masks this; but thats another debate

The argument for longer weapon ranges is slightly different: just doesn't look right for 15mm figures to have a maximum shooting range less than scale spitting distance. Get the ranges required to affect the enemies plans and go for correct look and feel rather than the correct maths for ground, vertical and time scales.

Gunrunner wrote:Carlos, don't think I advocate charging in on turn one. Having larger move distances encourages rash players to act rashly: balanced players will use appropriate movement to keep in formation until they have an advantage. Cautious players will still move slowly because they fear making a mistake. It's my opinion that DBM move distances don't allow any players to be rash. It also hides the weakness of cautious players by giving them time to calculate and adjust slightly each turn. The Pip dice masks this; but thats another debate

I disagree with you regarding longer move distances penalizing the overly rash and the overly cautious. In fact, longer move distances make it easier for them to recover their mistakes by responding once everything becomes (horribly) clear. I am very comfortable with the relative move distances of the different troop types in FoG as striking a good balance between realism and good game play.

Marc

The move distances taken in isolation do not indicate how the game plays. When first looking at FoG I was surprised that the armies started so far apart and that moves were only slightly further than DBM. However, no group moves more than twice per bound and every group can move. Further, the separate impact phase, relatively long skirmisher moves and no DBM style single element feature combine to make the closing rate of the main lines very fast. Possibly more important is the lack of any gaming device to block contact (kinked lines and so forth).

Unlike DBM there is no PIP allocation and no sorting out of where to spend PIPs when allocated. With a few games practice the game can be played very quickly. There is a lot of opportunity to get it wrong, be rash, have the wrong people in the wrong place and find there is no way out. The distances and ranges are not a problem, they work.

In my opinion, what makes DBM take long to play is the time to decide what to do with the Pip dice because you can't plan 100% what you are going to get and also the movement of single elements to very specific milimetre perfect position.

Gunrunner wrote: My pitch is for large move distances and shooting distances that are not just a slight extension of hand to hand combat. You can rationalise this in all sorts of ways (as you can for any rules argument) but it boils down to encouraging a more exiting game where each turn presents new options. ...

...It seems anything less than 6" just isn't worth the bother

Moves outside 6in of enemy (150mm) are at double speed. So heavy foot can initially move 6in/150mm, medium foot 8in/200mm, light foot 10in/250mm, and light horse 14in, 350mm. You do need a general with the unit/group to get the second move, which encourages sensible deployment of generals across the battlefield and a sensible clustering of units into groups.

Similarly, a reserve of cavalry can be moved across to a decisive point fairly quickly, but not so quickly that it becomes an instant fix to a hole in your line. You still need to anticipate where your reserve is needed 2-3 moves ahead.

A heavy infantry army can get across the table in 12 turns, which in the UK/Europe is the minumum number of turns that need to be played in a game.

Neil

Thanks guys, your recent explanations have encouraged me again, (and hopefully other non-dbm players). I particularly like the idea of groups being able to move twice when led by a general - a simple way of simulating several different concepts.

Not that I've got anything against DBM players: it's just not the style of game to attract a significantly wider audience, I feel.

Looking forward to trying it.

Lines crush quite fast. Infantry has gained a lot in this game, IMO.