What does everybody think of this game?

[vorbeck]

The title says it all. What does everybody think of this game? Playability, flow of game, is it easy to understand. I am not a big fan of DB*. As a matter of fact if it is to similiar I shall not play. Every time I have played DBM or DBR it seems that there are tons of house rules to fill in gaps, which just makes it that more confusing. Thoughts please.

Thank you,
Vorbeck

[rogerg]

We may be a little biased if we are reading this list. I for one am playing FoG because it is not like DBM. After nearly a year of play testing our group has not found any 'exotic element tactics' such as are used in DBM. FoG is a nice 'clean' game. As stated in another post, there is no advantage for kinking lines and similar spoiling tactics.

One major difference is that there are more factors to swing a combat. Numbers, overlaps and troop quality can balance the weapon factor effects. For me the thing that killed DBM was the certainty of some match ups. Being one factor down in a combat was crucial. One would never for example put auxilia into blades. In FoG you would not look for that match up, however, you would think about numbers, quality and supporting troops. This game offers far less certaintyand a lot of opportunity to play well. It is more fun.

[neilhammond]

It's not like DBM. On first reading there is a superficial resemblance to WRG 6th/7th (because of the reintroduction of units & weapons/armour classes) but this is not the case when you play the game.

I cetainly enjoy the game, and on balance prefer it to DBM.

[Empgamer]

Excellent IMO. Takes some of the best mechanisms from rules in the past and leaves out the poor ones and the pain. Well written, easy to LEARN, subtle and complex to master, superb troop differentiation and granularity and what seems to be very high production values. Almost certain it will be my ancients game of choice. Little in common with DBx IMO.

[maxigoth]

Hello from Australia.

I have been reading the posts on FoG and look forward to its release. I have not played Ancient wargames for quite some time. Previously I played 6th edition WRG and a few games against Neil Hammond using 7th edition WRG.

If any more specific date is available for release in Australia please advise; I believe it is to be some time in February?

Regards

[spike]

Excellent IMO. Takes some of the best mechanisms from rules in the past and leaves out the poor ones and the pain. Well written, easy to LEARN, subtle and complex to master, superb troop differentiation and granularity and what seems to be very high production values. Almost certain it will be my ancients game of choice. Little in common with DBx IMO.

The only real connection to DBx are the "base sizes" for the figures, and it has been written by RBS.

[spike]

Excellent IMO. Takes some of the best mechanisms from rules in the past and leaves out the poor ones and the pain. Well written, easy to LEARN, subtle and complex to master, superb troop differentiation and granularity and what seems to be very high production values. Almost certain it will be my ancients game of choice. Little in common with DBx IMO.

The only real connection to DBx are the "base sizes" for the figures, and it has been written by RBS. Most of the mechanics are new or from other sources.

[pcelella]

At our local gaming club, I ran a demo/walk-through of the rules last Friday night. This was put on for people who are mainly SF/Fantasy types, and they were all very impressed with the rules. A bunch of them are already planning their purchases for 15mm armies.

[hazelbark]

The title says it all. What does everybody think of this game? Playability, flow of game, is it easy to understand. I am not a big fan of DB*. As a matter of fact if it is to similiar I shall not play. Every time I have played DBM or DBR it seems that there are tons of house rules to fill in gaps, which just makes it that more confusing. Thoughts please.

As someone who plays and enjoys the DBx rules, I can say FoG is nothing like them.

Among the merits of FoG are:
1) you can read the rules once and start playing and you are not going to get them hugely wrong.

2) the fiddily bits of DBx are gone.

3) the wrg/dbx/warrior rules litigation is gone. "aha page 15 bullet 4 I can do x". It is very simple.

4) a bad player in DBx is going to lose and probably very badly. It can take the fun out of the game.
FoG is very different as the weaker skilled player still is going to have a good time and fighting chance.

5) the army list design is a less extreme process in FoG than it is in Dbx/wrg/warrior. In those you can take a good army and turn it into poop that is really a dead man walking. In FoG, you may have selected an inferior army, but then it appear nigh on impossible to make it worse. But at the same time they are not restrictive straight jackets.

6) FoG has lot more interesting things happening when battle lines clash especially if they are heavy foot. DBM less so.

7) FoG narrows armes down to basically 8-15 manuver units. So if you like the abilty to split your army up into 55 united like DBx you won't like FoG.

I predict FoG like DBA will be very adaptable to historical, scenario, campaign games. DBM/DBR are less so.

9) FoG will tend to need a few more figures for a "standard" game than say a "standard" DBM or DBR.

10) FoG flows easily. Both players switch back and forth and has a quick pace largerly because there are fewer manuver units.

[Gunrunner]

My bias and background: Currently I've played just two games after reading the Beta version, no other FOG players available yet to 'show me the ropes'. Tried DBA a while back and liked it but didn't think it scaled well up to DBM. Been wargaming for about 20 years, mainly playing Warmaster Ancients, Flames Of War, and Field Of Battle (FOB not FOG) lately.

My initial thoughts: The rules are pretty daunting to read through, although I'm sure having the diagrams in the published version will help a lot. It's straight into the detail about every rule you'll ever need to cover every possible variation about movement, then charges, combat, etc. The basic concepts are easy and work well but there are a lot of exceptions and conditions attached to...well just about everything. As I've said this is daunting at first read when you really just want to know the basics to get the first small game going.

The first couple of games have gone well: nothing too weird or tedious to spoil our perceptions about what an ancients battle should be. The pace of the game is much the same as DBX but there is much less fiddling about with individual bases and more potential for exciting (i.e unpredicted!) stuff to happen.

I say there is potential but as chance would have it our first couple of games have both involved a protracted close combat with two large battle-lines hammering away at each other to little effect, (both sides kept passing Cohesion tests when they lost and rarely failed a death roll). The smaller heavy infantry reserve lines could not really get involved as they would take for ever to get round to the flanks - and there was always that fairly decent chance of a battlegroup routing if the luck of the dice changed for a couple of turns. These particular games were decided 'on points' by the small cavalry skirmishes and a few frontline troops finally becoming Fragmented. But even although it was pretty static it held our interest as a) it felt realistic and b) eventually one unit would break leaving it's mates in the proverbial!

[Empgamer]

At first I thought it a little daunting too but I put that down mainly to two factors. Firstly we had a PC print out beta with no diagrams and without the professional finish/polish that the book will have. Secondly, thankfully, the rules are easy enough to learn BUT have enough complexity in them to make them interesting. I think this can make the quick skim-read section that provides the overview more difficult to do. With a game as simple as Warmaster Ancients (which initially I hade very high hopes for but for me found it lacked any depth or granularity) it is probably easier to achieve. With FOG I think you do need to read the rules through a few times before playing. Unlike some I can mention, I did actually find that an enjoyable process (with a lot of "now that I like"), an experience which I am sure will be made much more pleasant in published form.

[Gunrunner]

Hi Empgamer. Yes I agree that once the rules have been comprehended they are easy enough to apply: I just feel more could have been done to 'ease in' the novice and less academic players.

To compare the Warmaster publication (not the actual game play) you can see it's use of the "at a glance" pages introducing each chapter and the flow charts used to spell out the key mechanics. I was expecting more of that from FOG as it's seems to be been marketed at an even wider audience than GWs. I fear that the average Risk player who buys a copy on impulse will be left bewildered by the end of the general movement rules chapter; yet that same person involved in a participation game should take to it without problem.

So my summary: A good balance of fun and realism, very nice reference book and web site, but introduce friends with a game rather than letting them borrow the book.

My 10mm armies also look properly impressive in battle lines of 24 bases with 10 figures per base!

[MJT]

As long time players of DBx (and 7th Edition) my Club is "relieved" to have a sensible alternative to the WRG sets. We have now had three games of FoG and we are getting over our DBx bias to see the many positive aspects of FoG. The previous posts have outlined the key changes between the systems and I predict that FoG will quickly replace the WRG sets as the casual and competition set of choice.

I heard yesterday that the Australian DBM Championships (held annually in Canberra in Jan) have been cancelled ... only 5 paid entries! This is probably due to the new interest in DBMM (which I think will quickly pass) and a parallel DBA Big Battles Competition. WRG now have too many competing sets and I think FoG will fill the space for many frustrated and jaded ancients wargamers.

Marcus

[ars_belli]

So my summary: A good balance of fun and realism, very nice reference book and web site, but introduce friends with a game rather than letting them borrow the book.

As others have pointed out, these judgments are based on having read a beta copy that does not include final corrections, formatting, diagrams, or illustrations. I for one prefer to wait until I have had a chance to peruse the actual published rule book.

Cheers,
Scott

[Empgamer]

Hi Empgamer. Yes I agree that once the rules have been comprehended they are easy enough to apply: I just feel more could have been done to 'ease in' the novice and less academic players.

To compare the Warmaster publication (not the actual game play) you can see it's use of the "at a glance" pages introducing each chapter and the flow charts used to spell out the key mechanics. I was expecting more of that from FOG as it's seems to be been marketed at an even wider audience than GWs. I fear that the average Risk player who buys a copy on impulse will be left bewildered by the end of the general movement rules chapter; yet that same person involved in a participation game should take to it without problem.

So my summary: A good balance of fun and realism, very nice reference book and web site, but introduce friends with a game rather than letting them borrow the book.

My 10mm armies also look properly impressive in battle lines of 24 bases with 10 figures per base!

I'd agree where the beta is concerned but I really do think the published book, with all of it's Warmaster type diagrams (not saying it's a concept borrowed from Warmaster, rather it's one of the few Ancient rule sets to have gone down this route) will be MUCH, MUCH easier to comprehend and I suspect a great many will be able to learn fully from the rules themselves (severing all links with DBM ).

[rtaylor]

What you have to bear in mind is that, despite what some people may think, FOG is not a bottom-up set of rules. The POAs (although they may appear to be bottom up) have been chosen to give the right effect as determined from the top-down approach. There is little point, therefore, in getting into detailed theoretical considerations of the effects of length of spear, size of shield etc., because what matters is the overall interaction.

I quote this because it confirms my overall impression of FoG: it is a disciplined design, the distillation of years of ancient/medieval wargame experience into a few basic mechanics that work well together and are optimized for playability, with a minimum of exceptions and special cases.

The absence of a "recoil/push-back" mechanic tells me that the designers asked themselves about every feature:
1. Is it really necessary?
2. What is the payoff?
3. Is the payoff worth the player effort?

As a player I appreciate this, and as a professional software designer I admire it.

[rbodleyscott]

What you have to bear in mind is that, despite what some people may think, FOG is not a bottom-up set of rules. The POAs (although they may appear to be bottom up) have been chosen to give the right effect as determined from the top-down approach. There is little point, therefore, in getting into detailed theoretical considerations of the effects of length of spear, size of shield etc., because what matters is the overall interaction.

I quote this because it confirms my overall impression of FoG: it is a disciplined design, the distillation of years of ancient/medieval wargame experience into a few basic mechanics that work well together and are optimized for playability, with a minimum of exceptions and special cases.

The absence of a "recoil/push-back" mechanic tells me that the designers asked themselves about every feature:
1. Is it really necessary?
2. What is the payoff?
3. Is the payoff worth the player effort?

As a player I appreciate this, and as a professional software designer I admire it.

Your remarks are much appreciated, because we really have tried to distill the rules into as simple a form as possible while producing as realistic interactions as possible.

A lot of potential features were deliberately removed from the rules during the development process because the payoff was deemed inadequate. This includes recoils/push backs which added a lot of complexity for inadequate return. Quite a few modifers were also pruned from the rules - we were fairly ruthless in this regard. One principle that we tried to adhere to was "no double whammies" - thus, for example, there is no cohesion test modifier for "fighting in 2 directions" because that whammy has already been applied during combat resolution.

Thus while there are few truly revolutionary new mechanisms in FoG, we hope that the whole thing hangs together to give a very enjoyable and challenging game that is neverthless easy to pick up and play.

[malekithau]

Name the ancients game and good chance I've played it. TBHh (sorry RBS) DBM killed ancients for me for a long time. FOG has brought me back - since getting the beta rules I have expanded 2 armies and bought 2 more with plans for several more as well.

In short best Ancients rules ever..

[Scrumpy]

Played my first game with FOG last night against Roger Taylor, my Abbasid Arabs took on his Thematic Byzantines at 650 AP.

It was a pleasure to finally use the rules on table rather than working out theoretical fights on paper, and I found FOG flowed much easier than DBM ever did. We completed the game without any problems, the rules were easy to follow, and always seemed to place ease of playability first.

Well done to all behind these rules, they are excellent !

[dreiling]

Having played only a few games, really liked the following in FoG vs DBM:

• The army doesn't suddenly become stupid or static (i.e., bad pip rolls) - ergo generally every unit can make one or two moves each turn - more than enough excitement.
  The units act like units, not some random stand that when positioned just so correctly controls the entire game through a devastating recoil.
  Units have size and morale levels - often more important than actual base loses.
  Morale can be recovered - not lost forever
  Generals have really interesting things to do: command lines of troops, rally troops, support troops
  Maneuver is generally straight forward.
  Did I mention that the rules are clear, that diagrams and illustrations really help, that non-cryptic English is easier to read and understand?
  The army lists have a lot fewer of the exotic troop types/mixes/units.
  Probably more later.