FOG Lite

johng · Post by **johng** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:48 pm

Hi,

One of the joys of DBA was fielding many different armies at a reasonable cost. I play with 28mm and expanding my DBA/DBM armies to FOG will be quite costly.

I was wondering about a smaller, DBA version of FOG for smaller armies and speedier games. I haven't found any official rules, but has anyone any ideas?

I realise that i could use a smaller points value (200-500) and reduce the cost of Generals proportionatly to compensate. For consistency, I was thinking on the lines of making selections from the 'Allied' list. But some armies such as Foederate Roman do not have such lists.

Another thought was sabot bases. For example, where four bases were required, only using two in the front rank and supplementing markers for the rear two elements.
This could resolve the figure count but does not speed up the game.

Has anyone any other ideas?

Regards
John

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:31 pm

I haven't thought it through, not being a DBA player, but what about using one element to represent an entire BG? You could use counters to mark casualties. If you made each element the equiv of 4, then you've got 4 times the number of elements to start with.

You would certainly have enough then to put together a 600 or 650 point army at the very least.

Like I say, I'm not sure how it would work. You would have to change ranges and movement distances as well, 1/4 maybe?

Ian

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:45 pm

This is one thread re "Mini FoG" ideas - there are others. I was thinking of collecting suggestions in a Word file on the Yahoo group but expect to get round to it.

viewtopic.php?t=6828

Yes, scaling distances down and having each base represent a 2 base-frontage is one idea, but just having fewer BGs can still give an enjoyable game. Indeed, some battles can best be represented by a handful of BGs in terms of the army structures and articulation. and a single commander rather than 2 or more.

Mike

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:59 am

MikeK wrote:This is one thread re "Mini FoG" ideas - there are others. I was thinking of collecting suggestions in a Word file on the Yahoo group but expect to get round to it.

viewtopic.php?t=6828

Yes, scaling distances down and having each base represent a 2 base-frontage is one idea, but just having fewer BGs can still give an enjoyable game. Indeed, some battles can best be represented by a handful of BGs in terms of the army structures and articulation. and a single commander rather than 2 or more.

Mike

I guess that's true - Cannae could really be (very poorly) represted by a BG of Cavalry on each wing and a BG of foot in the middle.

Ian

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:01 am

DaiSho wrote:I guess that's true - Cannae could really be (very poorly) represted by a BG of Cavalry on each wing and a BG of foot in the middle.

Ian

I think it would work better on battles an order of magnitude or more smaller with just a few moving parts. It was more the era of Wolves from the Sea I had in mind.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:11 am

MikeK wrote:
DaiSho wrote:I guess that's true - Cannae could really be (very poorly) represted by a BG of Cavalry on each wing and a BG of foot in the middle.

Ian
I think it would work better on battles an order of magnitude or more smaller with just a few moving parts. It was more the era of Wolves from the Sea I had in mind.

Sure, but really at a large level how many moving parts were there at Cannae? I'm not saying you WANT to drop it to 3 BG's, but you certainly could, and for someone who has a Carthaginian and Roman DBA army they would likely be able to put together three BG's. Throwing things like the Elephants in with the other mounted and just calling it a 'mixed BG' but making it effectively all "Cavarly, Superior, Armoured, Lightspear, Swordsmen'.

They are just bits of lead sitting on bits of cardboard after-all. It's how they interact that matters.

Ian

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:26 am

johng wrote:Hi,

One of the joys of DBA was fielding many different armies at a reasonable cost. I play with 28mm and expanding my DBA/DBM armies to FOG will be quite costly.

I was wondering about a smaller, DBA version of FOG for smaller armies and speedier games. I haven't found any official rules, but has anyone any ideas?

...

Has anyone any other ideas?

Regards
John

we've tried playing 400point games on a 1m by 1m table. seems to work pretty well.

you play the same game, but start close and get into it. it means the LH play is minimised (no room to flee), and the fighting is focussed on the units themselves.

it's also a short game and plenty of "beers and peanuts" fun.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:11 am

DaiSho wrote:Sure, but really at a large level how many moving parts were there at Cannae? I'm not saying you WANT to drop it to 3 BG's, but you certainly could, and for someone who has a Carthaginian and Roman DBA army they would likely be able to put together three BG's. Throwing things like the Elephants in with the other mounted and just calling it a 'mixed BG' but making it effectively all "Cavarly, Superior, Armoured, Lightspear, Swordsmen'.

They are just bits of lead sitting on bits of cardboard after-all. It's how they interact that matters.

Ian

Elephants at Canne? Perhaps are you confonding with Zama?

Mario

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:18 am

FWIW I have played around with a version to see if i could get a few of Matts friends into wargaming where:

All foot BGs are 4 bases and are always 2 x 2 formation and always roll 4 dice.
All mounted BGs are 2 bases and are always 2 x 1 formation and roll 2 dice, or 1 x 2 if chariots or Ellies.
Always 3 generals but no bolstering or rallying at all - so C&C only and less issues of the value of generals.
No routs - remove BGs entirely once BRK.
Evades only possible directly away - so no fancy adapting directions.
No base removal at all - just CT effects.
Only short range fire and support shooting.
No funny troops - core ones only.
Simplified CMT table where undrilled always test and drilled never do.
Keeps the core of the rule concepts of the combat mechanisms, CTs and CMTS but simplified.

e.g.

Romans

4 BGs legionaries
2 BGs Auxilia
2 BGs LF
2 BGs Cv

10 little BGs with an FC and a 2 TC. 36 bases plus generals.

Britons

8 BG warriors
2 BG LF
2 Bg Chariots
2 BG LH
14BGs with 3 TCs. 48 bases plus generals.

Seemed a possible beginning but nothing more at yet (would need to put it throuth the usual FOG rigour to do that and about 5% along any such process). Nothing like the real thing though .... you start to feel all the missing bits affecting the realism ..... however if anyone is mucking around feel free to try some of those ideas.

Si

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:54 am

marioslaz wrote:
DaiSho wrote:Elephants at Canne? Perhaps are you confonding with Zama?

Mario

Who knows what I was thinking.

Ian

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:04 am

Elephants at Canne? Perhaps are you confonding with Zama?

Mario

Presumably confonded the film festival with the battle.

Si

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:27 pm

shall wrote:
Elephants at Canne? Perhaps are you confonding with Zama?

Mario
Presumably confonded the film festival with the battle.

Si

Did you ever hear the phrase "Vile, tu uccidi un uomo morto!"

Mario.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:36 pm

Did you ever hear the phrase "Vile, tu uccidi un uomo morto!"

Mario.
Not yet but it sounds funny in Latin. Rough translation being .... ???

Si

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:45 pm

"Vile, tu uccidi un uomo morto" (Italiano)

"Coward, you kill a dead man" (English)

Mario

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:51 pm

The 'kill dead man' bit was confusing

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:00 pm

philqw78 wrote:The 'kill dead man' bit was confusing

According to tradition, this phrase was pronounced by Francesco Ferrucci, dying due to wounds, before Fabrizio Maramaldo killed him. In Italia Maramaldo became so a synonym for traitor (Maramaldo was a general paid by foreign country against Italian Republic of Firenze).

Mario

P.S. Firenze = Florence

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:25 pm

The things you learn on the FOG forum eh! Must get that on a tee shirt sometime ..... would be excellent to reveal during a final rearguard.

What armies are you playing over in italia Mario? Where are you based.

Si

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:15 pm

shall wrote:The things you learn on the FOG forum eh! Must get that on a tee shirt sometime ..... would be excellent to reveal during a final rearguard.

What armies are you playing over in italia Mario? Where are you based.

Si

I live in San Lazzaro di Savena a small town adjacent to Bologna.

My favoured era are:

400-200AC
1300AD

My armies are:

Roman (from 400 to 200AC)
Greek and all variants (Sicilioti like Siracusani, Italioti like Campani)
Sanniti (I think I'm the only to own an army of Sanniti in all the World, because they are treated badly in all army list, but they were fierce warrior by far better than depicted)
Carthaginian (early and later)
Macedonian (with also many oriental troops)
A typical Esercito Comunale del 1300 (Comunal Army of 1300AD)
A typical Esercito di una Signoria del 1400 (Signory Army of 1400AD)

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:02 am

shall wrote: Presumably confonded the film festival with the battle.

Si

That was it, the battle of Cannes Film Festival - last top movie involved elephants

Ian

FOG Lite

FOG Lite

Re: FOG Lite