Slitherine

I will be introducing a new player to FoG this weekend and he wants to play Free Company or Italian Condotta (he has played both under WRG 5th/6th). I will be using Swiss ,so if anyone has a good, easy to use, list to suggest for either Free Company or Italian Condotta I would appreciate it. I could take a starter army from the list or create one but if someone neutral has a good one I would feel more comfortable giving it to the player for his first game (Swiss will be tough to beat in a first game).

TIA

Just a thought, but why play a new player with an army like Swiss that will be very difficult for him to have any sort of success against? Would a heavy defeat maybe prejudice him against playing again?
I'd suggest you try and put two Condotta city state armies together that are different from each other so there is a chance he will get some success.
Or if it is purely a tutorial game, then put together something you think will produce a balanced game even if it doesn't comply with any particular army?

Something like:
2 TC's
2 HF Def Sp BG's
1 Hf Pike BG
1 Lf X-Bow BG
1 MF X Bow BG
1 LH X-Bow BG
2 Kn BG's

I think that something like that would give a fun 1st game?

Regards

Dave M

Pre-set terrain scenario? Give the Italians some fortifications and terrain in defense of a key point and have the Swiss assault them?

I agree with the others, using Swiss against Condotta is not a good match-up. Not least as
Swiss is pretty one-dimensional anyway, so you won't see many troop interactions apart from
knights impaling themselves on pikes.

You want two armies with variety. If he likes Free Company, use a Spanish army like
Aragonese.

Gentlemen, thank you for all the responses. Swiss vs Condotta was proposed because the only post 1000AD armies I have Norman, Post Mongol Russian, Samurai, Italian Condotta and Swiss. The books are not out for the first 3 so, without thinking it through, that it what I proposed. You are right it will not give a great game.

My Condotta army is tiny so can't make two lists from it but I do like your suggestion Dave. I will see what I can do with that. The idea of Swiss charging into a fortified position might appeal to my Condotta loving friend as last time we played he was bloodly repulsed trying to retake some fortifications... Thanks Mike.

Peter suggested something Spanish. At first I was going to reject the idea. However I do have a DBR French army that I could play around with and get something that will not be too far from the Aragonise list.

It might be a 550 point game so I might have to do it on smaller table but your ideas have all been welcome.

If you can cobble together some French, French Ordinance vs Condotta is a good match (I have these two, or can mix as two Condotta forces), and some of the Swiss pikes could be added to either (or masquerade as someone other than Swiss.)

Split both armies and play an Italian condotta internal conflict where both have hired swiss allies.

Anthony

The nice thing about the Free Company's is you can use any Knight's and other troops to make it up.

Example, My Free Gompany, ( The Black Company)

1 BG Knight's, Hvy. Ar./Sup./Undrilled/Lan.&Sw. x 6
1 BG Knight's, Hvy. Ar./Avg./Drilled/Lan.&Sw. x 6
1 BG Hvy. Ft., Hvy. Ar./Sup./Drilled/Hvy. wep. x 8
1 BG Hvy. Ft., Hvy. Ar./Sup./Undrilled/Hvy. Wep. x 6
2 BG Med. Ft. L-Bow, Pro./Avg./Drilled/Sw.&Bw. x 12
1 BG Med. Ft. Brigans, Pro./Avg./Undrilled/Sw. x 8
1 BG Lt. Ft. Gas. or Brit.,Unpro/Avg./Undrilled/Jav.&Lt.Sp. x 4
C-in-C - Inspired
Sub.Gen. Troop commander's x 2 Total = 798 pt's

OR

C-in-C - Field commander, Plus add 8 more Lt.Ft. for 2 more BG
Total = 800 pt's

To me this seem's to be a Good,strong but small army.

Thank you for all the suggestions. Ordonnance French I can't do as my longbows are based for Tercio but it is a good suggestion.

We settled upon Italian Condotta (Venice in Italy) vs Med Crown of Aragon and the first timer can choose which side he wants. I will probably skip much of the pre-battle as we only have 4 hours for a first game at 700 points.

timmy1 wrote: We settled upon Italian Condotta (Venice in Italy) vs Med Crown of Aragon and the first timer can choose which side he wants. I will probably skip much of the pre-battle as we only have 4 hours for a first game at 700 points.

If it's someone's first game, I think the terrain and the deployment system are worth doing, neither is complicated.
After deployment, for a first game, unless they are happy to start moving around, going straight forward is
often best. Ideally you want to see as many different shooting and combat interactions between troop types as
possible. I find learning impact, melee, shooting and cohesion tests are the technical things that at first try
are a little overwhelming, but it soon becomes second nature. One can worry about the tactical stuff later,
like where generals need to be, bolstering, intercept charges, etc etc

Rgds,
Peter

Oh, and remember to lose

peterrjohnston wrote:Oh, and remember to lose

Actually lose but make it a close game if you can.

I spent a lot of time losing FoG games while I was teaching people to play and recently I have had to try to get my head around playing hard to win.

Peter / Hammy

Thank you for the advice. My opponent was unavoidably detained so we had less time than expected. We skipped terrain rolling and I allowed him choice of the terrain that was preset. I deployed first and allowed him to choose to move first or second. Other than that we play strictly by the rules. My opponent was a well ranked WRG 5th Edition competiton player and someone who regularly has given me a bloody nose in other periods.

My opponent made good use of having more drilled troops and soon had me in real trouble. The stradiots were a real irritant and I was not able to ensure that my Kn avoided his Pike. He had a good plan and executed it well.

As for losing to the first timer, that was not a problem.

Afterwards my opponent said that he had enjoyed it and understood what was going on. He asked when my local club had their next meeting, so I might well have an FoG convert.

3 things came out of the game.

1, Evading was time consuming to run through and there was loads of it.

2, Teaching a new player without Andy Bascombe's index would have been well nigh impossible.

3, My opponent was able to play most of the game using the 2 page QRS written by John Davis.

Even though I did not win, I enjoyed it.

hammy wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Oh, and remember to lose

Actually lose but make it a close game if you can.

I spent a lot of time losing FoG games while I was teaching people to play and recently I have had to try to get my head around playing hard to win.

NEVER EVER EVER intentionally lose to a competitive person like myself! I would be furious if I thought my opponent was doing that to me.

flameberge wrote:

hammy wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Oh, and remember to lose

Actually lose but make it a close game if you can.

I spent a lot of time losing FoG games while I was teaching people to play and recently I have had to try to get my head around playing hard to win.

NEVER EVER EVER intentionally lose to a competitive person like myself! I would be furious if I thought my opponent was doing that to me.

I agree. For one thing it is patronising and for another it sets a false standard for the new player. I always remember the 1st game I beat my DBM mentor after many games trying, and it was a milestone for me.
Play hard and fair and always explain what is happening to your opponent. It is permissable IMHO to say something like, "That would be a really bad move as I could do this" etc. if it is one of those game breakers.

Regards

Dave M

I would never and have never intentionally lost to a player I am teaching a game. Using ideas from the spiritual leader of Dave and Hammy's indicated location, I play with an army that is slightly fewer points than my opponent, say 700 vs 675, not enough to be obvious but enough to give a chance to a first timer.

Also, the 'I could do this if you do that' steer is vital when playing someone who is new to the rules.

Regards
Tim

timmy1 wrote:I would never and have never intentionally lost to a player I am teaching a game. Using ideas from the spiritual leader of Dave and Hammy's indicated location, I play with an army that is slightly fewer points than my opponent, say 700 vs 675, not enough to be obvious but enough to give a chance to a first timer.

Also, the 'I could do this if you do that' steer is vital when playing someone who is new to the rules.

I don't play with less points against a new player and I will play sensibly, I will not play full intensity when teaching and I definitley use the "I could do this if you ... approach".

The time to worry is when I start telling you how to do something that is clearly possible but you can't work out how to acheive in a tournament game. It normally means I am 100% sure I have won and am just making sure I have enough time to get to the winning post

I found I lost a lot of the learning games I played and the ones that I won were close fought, mainly because I would not let my opponents make mistakes. Alo the fact that FoG seems to reward sensible tactics and isn't about micro management means that a decent wargamer will be a decent FoG player without having to spend years learning all the tricks of the trade like you do in DBx

My comment was more about not grinding your beginning opponent into the dust just to satisfy one's ego. Perhaps
others view it differently...

hammy wrote: I found I lost a lot of the learning games I played and the ones that I won were close fought, mainly because I would not let my opponents make mistakes. Alo the fact that FoG seems to reward sensible tactics and isn't about micro management means that a decent wargamer will be a decent FoG player without having to spend years learning all the tricks of the trade like you do in DBx

I've found the same, tactics and planning are rewarded. Ethan Zorich summarised it nicely on the yahoo groups. Basically
FoG's stripped away all the redundant decisions, leaving what's important. Also one can't use micro-tactics like in DBM
to force a draw.

timmy1 wrote:Peter / Hammy

Thank you for the advice. My opponent was unavoidably detained so we had less time than expected. We skipped terrain rolling and I allowed him choice of the terrain that was preset. I deployed first and allowed him to choose to move first or second. Other than that we play strictly by the rules. My opponent was a well ranked WRG 5th Edition competiton player and someone who regularly has given me a bloody nose in other periods.

My opponent made good use of having more drilled troops and soon had me in real trouble. The stradiots were a real irritant and I was not able to ensure that my Kn avoided his Pike. He had a good plan and executed it well.

Sounds like a good game. I must admit I thought your opponent was a beginner. If he's an ex-5th edition player, he's been
playing wargames as long as me! Who was he, if you don't mind me asking?

Rgds,
Peter

Peter, I am a 3rd edition player (just, I started when I was 11, 'onest guv.). I will have to check with my 5th edition chum if he is prepared to be identified. There has been a lot of bad blood over the splits that have occurred in ancient wargaming recently and I am not sure if he wishes to be publicly 'outed' as FoG player. Sad I know but it has got that way in some circles.