"Field of Glory Renaissance and FoG Napoleonic announced! " Topic

So it's basically checkers with Nap figures glued on the gaming pieces?

You elitist, you!

"I sympathize with anybody going through the rigors and expense of a full-scale professional game release."

So do I. But I do think they can do so without all the marketing hype. As several people have said, we wargamers are a cynical, critical but actually quite discerning bunch who tend to treat bovine excreta with the contempt it deserves.

What is so wrong about giving yourself every chance to sell your products?

Marketing is everywhere, why can't wargaming companies do it too?

Hi all – Don't get me wrong, as I said when I started this thread I'm looking forward to their take on the renaisance period. I've only played a couple of FoG ancients games using my Pontics but like what I saw. Between 15mm Age of Eagles and 25mm Empire not sure if FoG Napoleonic will take but they will still most likely end up on my shelf as part of my rules collection

Napoleonics is one of those periods (perhaps THE period) where you will never be able to gain consensus as to what the perfect set of rules will be. There are too many variables in play whether you're talking about figure scales, ratios, battalion-vs-brigade units, etc.

There's a large number of people playing Napoleonics in my area and you're lucky to get more than 20-25% of them to play any given system let alone actually paint up & base figures for one.

I have many sets of Napoleonics rules and figures in several different scales, and have no illusions about ever being able to find the 'perfect' set. I have different figures for different rules sets and am content with that.

I signed up to be a beta tester for the FoG Napoleonics rules and will be curious to see what they look like if I am accepted. I wouldn't be surprised to see them oriented for tournament play, though hopefully they will also be easy to use for 'social' games where you have multiple players on each side.

I don't mind a Napoleonic rule set aimed at quick pick-up games (which FoG seems to be).

Other than older Warhammer armies, all my miniatures are Napoleonics.

Sometimes, I just want to play a quick game with my brother, nothing historical or fancy.

I welcome any ruleset that allows me to do that in a respectable time-frame.

Nothing against FoG, but surely it isn't "quick-play!" I rather think it's fairly complex, with a dozen or more troop types to memorize, two separate combat routines, and fairly intricate movement rules.

I'm sure I'll have a go at it when it arrives, but I'm not expecting simple or quick-play.

But it is rather odd that whenever a rule-set becomes successful, people immediately want to apply it to everything from Biblical Hebrews to the Moon Landing… and yet as soon as somebody produces a variant of it for another period, everybody bashes them for simply porting a game from one period to another!

Here's another vote for the "Wargamers will never be happy," option on the ballot. It would be foolish for any manufacturer to try to please people who pride themselves on being hard to please. Recruiting new customers would seem a much better option than currying favor with the crusty old Grognards and Anoraks.

I don't mind a Napoleonic rule set aimed at quick pick-up games (which FoG seems to be)

Er…not quick unless you think that 3-4 hours is quick.

Woot. My 1805 Austrians kicked butt in the tournament, wiping the floor with 1812 Peninsular Brits and 1813 Swedes. The easiest win was against a poorly made Revolutionary French army because my army was almost entirely cavalry and it destroyed his skirmishers.

My mistake; I was under the impression that FoG was intended as a pts/pick-up style of games.

I obviously never played it.

It is a points/pick-up/army list and tournament system. It just doesn't play quickly. Well, more quickly than some. I can get in an 800 point FoG game well before I can finish Borodino for Napoleon's Battles.

FoG is not as quick a game to play as DBM with a similar size force. That said I'd sooner play FoG because it gives more of a feel to maintaining a battleline that all those cheese tricks in the DBM family.

My problem is that the FoG periods tend to attract the tournament players. Indeed, after three of four games the main person here in the Cities pushing the rules wanted a tournament. I went off and played Napoleon' Battles instead that weekend – and I'm no great fan of NB.

The more big, glossy, colorful and interesting products that come out, the more interest is generated, the better for everybody.

Amen!

I went to the Manchester bootcamp and have been enthused by FoG – the historical demo game of Late Romans vs Alammani worked very well and was much more exciting thn the DBM equivalent.

Can't see too many problems with the shooting rules myself – and can't see too many problems with using FoG for the early Rennaissance, sort of Italian Wars and possibly up to ECW.

For Horse & Musket I'll reserve judgement. Could be very good, but that period has a specific flavour.

>>> Er…not quick unless you think that 3-4 hours is quick.

For Napoleonics players 3-4 hours is quick. A good napoleonics game takes that long to get your initial orders written, doesn't it? ;-)

For Napoleonics, 3-4 hours is required just for deployment and the initial rules argument phase. :-)

Ok

So the FoG authors think that they have established a rules platform that is applicable to other periods.

Well that isn't new. Whether any new adaptations will find favour only time will tell but while FoG hasn't necessarily gone down like the proverbial lead baloon, it was over hyped and whatever the verbiage of the promotion, I doubt that extensions to the FoG canon will have quite the "new labour" feel to them.

What has always interested me about FoG has been the link with a publishing house as mainstream as Osprey which has meant that the rules have been available in some ordinary bookshops rather than through the specialist hobby outlets.

Has the exposure this offered meant that FoG has sold the hobby to newcomers? Certainly it's writing style addresses a novice audience.

Is there any evidence, anecdotal or emprical if not rational, to suggest that it has served to recruit to the hobby?

If so the possibility of further FoG periods isto be welcomed.

Shako the hobbit? Must be a 6mm figure.

What has always interested me about FoG has been the link with a publishing house as mainstream as Osprey which has meant that the rules have been available in some ordinary bookshops rather than through the specialist hobby outlets.

Is there any evidence, anecdotal or emprical if not rational, to suggest that it has served to recruit to the hobby?

Casually tracking sales of FoG in our local mega book stores, I noted the following:

It was always stocked in the games section, well hidden from anyone that had an interest in history. You had to go looking for it to find it. Anyone looking for the games section in the bookstore is not going to be grabbing FoG on speculation. When I tried to encourage them to move it into the history section I was told that they wouldn't be able to.

The only people that purchased it were, I believe, people in our local gaming circle who went there looking for it and could just as easily have gotten it online. Indeed, since they never stocked more than the first two supplements, all other supplements were ordered online.

Locally at least, it was an entirely failed marketing strategy.

In the British book chain Waterstones, the army list supplements are always with the Ospreys – I've only once seen the rule book there (Southport Waterstones)

I came across a copy of the Romans Codex (army list, or whatever they call it) in an Ottawa Chapters (big chain bookstore). It was in the Military History section, but was the lone FoG product I saw there.

Renaissance FoG might get me to give FoG a look. I think the local DBM crowd prefers it to DBM. Can a 1670-1720 set be far behind?

Re Don's "Shako the hobbit? Must be a 6mm figure."

Have you never looked at some of the Essex range?

All osprey in the USA use Random House as the central wholesale source for distributors. Cut rate deals to chain stores and Amazon style operations are part of the market today.

I saw FoG rules and supplements in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy graphic novel section at Barnes and Nobles in Tyson's Corner VA. Never saw it in History section or the Games section (probably where it should be.)

They will probably make the whole FOG system compatible so that gamers can pit Napoleonic armies against Ancients or Renaissance armies in a gigantic wargaming tournament aimed at crowning a FOG multi-period world wargaming champion.

Oh and Sam, link

My rules are free, have no hit counter, but haven't been around since 2004 and have less than five pages.

But Clay, I did check out your rules. After you wrote this:

>>Too bad it's from Sam Mustafa. Otherwise it might actually be accurate. But he will 'play balance it' and sacrifice historical accuracy to create a 'better game'.<<

TMP link

…I was curious as to what such a fellow might come up with, himself. Surely someone who was so serious about not sacrificing accuracy would never do a mere "game." That would be very hypocritical, after all, to criticize others for doing so. Surely, I assumed, you must be a Wargamer's Wargamer who would not settle for anything less than a True Historical Simulation….

For instance, the opening sentence of your rules reads:

"These rules are an attempt at putting our 25mm Napoleonic collection on the wargaming table and playing wargames that have some sort of resemblance to history in a reasonable amount of time."

They will probably make the whole FOG system compatible so that gamers can pit Napoleonic armies against Ancients or Renaissance armies in a gigantic wargaming tournament aimed at crowning a FOG multi-period world wargaming champion.

Either you are being facetious or deliberative provocative. There is no reason to suppose they will do anything of the sort. Have you got something against FoG or Slitherine?

De gustibus non est disputandum

I can't define historical accuracy, but I know it when I see it! :)

If you think about the historical accuracy argument, if "historical accuracy" is the Holy Grail of wargame design then a certfied Napoleonic historian should design the most historically accurate wargame. But, would it be "playable?" A wargame is an abstraction and decisions about what you represent are as important as how you represent them. Which map is the most accurate? Depends on its purpose, its scale, and other factors. Is the map easy to read?

I would rather seek the Holy Grail than try to design a Napoleonic wargame that would please the majority of wargamers. I might actually find the grail!

And, an historical accout is an abstraction of "reality." Is the most "historically accurate" book easiest to read?

As James Madison said; "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions [wargames] will be formed."

And now for something completely different . . .

Interesting that one of the areas being picked on here is the possibility of points-based armies.

At the same time, over on the Warlord Games forum, Warlord are being chastised for their forthcoming "Black Powder" rules because the authors have specifically stated the lack of points-based armies.

We are indeed a fickle hobby…

Ed the will probably at least look at it before rejecting it and buying it.

Wait…rejecting AND buying…must…resist…

It isn't that the hobby is fickle. It is that there is a schism between gameplayers and simulationists. Sure, there are people that fence sit between the two but there is also a great divide. The two types of players really don't understand one another.

Warhammer players do not, generally, cross the floor to detailed simulationist Napoleonics and vice versa. The gameplayers play to beat the rules. The simulations change the rules to suit their play.

Not sure why all the complaints about a set of rules they haven't even seen yet. If you don't like FOG style no one is going to force you to play. Unless the concern is that you are worried it will draw players way from your personal favourite rule sets.

You might not like the old WRG rules but they did set a standard for basing ancients that remains with us still. Some goes for FOW and infantry basing to a lesser extent. If FOG can do the same for other periods why the complaining?

Points armies might be considered evil by a fair number of players but having played my first FOW game a few days ago I have to say it made a welcome relief from having to come up with fair/playable WW2 scenarios.

Ideally I would like to see FOG put out army books and painting guides for Napoleonic in a similar style as FOW. I have read a fair number of books on Napoleonic's but recently when wanting to start collecting 15mm British I didn't know where to start.

Yay! Sam doesn't have me stifled!

"Not sure why all the complaints about a set of rules they haven't even seen yet."

It's not the rules themselves (no one has seen then yet, as you say) it's the marketing hubris that most people are complaining about.

"If you don't like FOG style no one is going to force you to play."

Correct.

"Unless the concern is that you are worried it will draw players way from your personal favourite rule sets."

Couldn't care less if it does!

"You might not like the old WRG rules but they did set a standard for basing ancients that remains with us still."

True. Although a number of rules (e.g. Impetus, Crusader, WAB) do not conform, so it's less of a standard than it was.

"Same goes for FOW and infantry basing to a lesser extent."

Not as far as I am concerned.

"Points armies might be considered evil by a fair number of players but having played my first FOW game a few days ago I have to say it made a welcome relief from having to come up with fair/playable WW2 scenarios."

All points systems are inherently broken.

"I have read a fair number of books on Napoleonic's but recently when wanting to start collecting 15mm British I didn't know where to start."

It's called research. How do people think we managed in the days before Ospreys?

[Interesting that one of the areas being picked on here is the possibility of points-based armies.]

I know. It's bizarre, isn't it. It's perfectly normal and acceptable to play a generic Romans-vs-Macedonians battle…. and nobody will bat an eye or ask for your True Historical Wagamer I.D. card if you played Japanese Samurai vs. Biblical Assyrians.

But it's a disgusting perversion to play a generic, points-based French-vs-Russians battle… and blackest heresy to even think about 1805 Austrians vs. 1813 Prussians.

[The gameplayers play to beat the rules. The simulationists change the rules to suit their play.]

Well said!

[The gameplayers play to beat the rules. The simulationists change the rules to suit their play.]

Overgeneralized, but does describe many.

"Changing the rules" could also occur because people learn more about the history of the period, or they want to improve the rules (fix "bugs" or implement "feed back" from use). There is a tendencey to consciously or unconsiously reflect biases and perceptions about history, but there are designs that rely on the efforts of more than one person and which have feedback from many participants. Of course you could then argue that some form of "group think" creeps into design.

In my region of the USA, we have traditionally called those players who 'play to beat the rules' rules lawyers.

I disagree about the view about simulation players. True simulation player like well defined and defensible rules and game mechanics. They like to try to acheive a difficlut goal (win the scenario) with the limited amount of tools provided by the rules.

I hope FOGN is successful. If it brings us some new blood – my prediction is many of them will be shocked at how different the Napoleonic crowd is from Ancients and WWII. And that will be entertaining!

Also, there's a similar thread to this one in the product review forum and basing seems to be a larger part of the discussion there.

""Not sure why all the complaints about a set of rules they haven't even seen yet."
It's not the rules themselves (no one has seen then yet, as you say) it's the marketing hubris that most people are complaining about."
Not most people, just you really Mike. Most people on here seem pretty positive about it.
The company is in business to sell its products, so it's quite reasonable to put out a marketing statement like this. Relative to other rule sets, FOG has taken the wargaming world by storm. The way it has taken over the Ancients tournament scene is pretty impressive for the first year of a new set of rules, and I'm sure the sales figures back up their claim. If the activity on the forums is anything to go by, I'd say it was probably the most played ancients set now.
And you say "what stringent criteria", but I would bet that you cannot name a ruleset that was more thoroughly playtested than FOG.

"Not most people, just you really Mike. "

Let me see…
Crusaderminis
Shane deVries
Clay the Elitist
138SquadronRAF
Der Alte Fritz
Jermy Sutcliffe
Keraunos
acarhj
Shagnasty
Griefbringer
doug redshirt
malcommccallum
(sorry if I've missed anyone)
All of the above have in one way or another indicated their scepticism about these rules, particularly the Napoleonic version.

"The company is in business to sell its products, so it's quite reasonable to put out a marketing statement like this."

Yes, marketing statements in general are quite reasonable, but the style of the statement in question is tantamount to saying that the FoG system is the best thing since sliced bread and by this time next year (or whenever they actually publish the rules) we will all be yapping at their doors for a copy. Never happen.

"Relative to other rule sets, FOG has taken the wargaming world by storm."

Not where I am it hasn't. And it sounds like it hasn't in a lot of other places as well.

"The way it has taken over the Ancients tournament scene is pretty impressive for the first year of a new set of rules,"

Tournament players are a small subset of the total wargaming community and seem to have preferred rules that virtually no one else plays. A few years ago it was DBM.

"If the activity on the forums is anything to go by, I'd say it was probably the most played ancients set now."

No, the activity on the forums (fora?) is not anything to go by since they are mostly the province of the FoG fanboys (I presume you are referring to the Slitherine forums?). The vast majority of wargamers are not involved.

"And you say "what stringent criteria", but I would bet that you cannot name a ruleset that was more thoroughly playtested than FOG."

Playtesting does not imply "stringent criteria". I know of other rulesets that were equally thoroughly playtested before publication.

Mike has several good points, especially about activity on forums. I belong to several and by the number of messages you come away thinking that such and such a group is pretty active, then you realize it's one or two guys posting 90% of the materials! Likewise, I think that the FOG books and materials are well designed and marketed well, but "taken the gaming community by storm"? Umm…no. It is a popular set of rules, but I would be surprised if 8-10% of all ancients gamers actually play it.

FOG has been replacing all other ancients rules in the Texas tournament circuit. (I still play Might of Arms, so what do I know?)

The Naps crowd is so totally different though. FOGN is a welcome addition, but it's just another ruleset as far as I'm concerned. Without more detail on it how can I buy it? Thumb through somebody else's copy maybe?

The way it has taken over the Ancients tournament scene is pretty impressive for the first year of a new set of rules, and I'm sure the sales figures back up their claim.

I seem to remember DBM doing the same thing when it first came out. And it hasn't quite achieved the dominance that DBM did – there are still a few DBM and more than a few DBMM tournaments out there.
As for sales figures that is pretty meaningless when it comes to judging how many people play it. I've got a set, but never played them. I played in a few playtest games – it was Art of War at the time.
As for a Napoleonic version I'd be surprised if it achieved the same level of success as the ancients version. FoG came along at time when people were ready for a change in Ancients and I just don't see that in Napoleonics.

I am sure that the slitherine forums are checked as are a number of other forums by the FoG moderators.

Being that I can see the forum posts on the development of Army lists, I know that a lot of in depth source searching, debate and comparison of historical issues to game mechanics is a common.

Such devotion to all details goes into the game design aspects as well. Honestly I do not have access to the napoleonics site, so I cannot follow the principles being used for that system.

Providing a product that is playable, thus causing more interest and more purchases is the marketing goal of any company. It is my opinion that with marketing and other production issues in mind, the designers of FoGN and FoGR will provide a very playable system.

Well done FoG! They have made a splash, sold lots of rules, generated lots of debate – and are now set to sell lots more rules. How shocking and evil can that be?

I am personally a late adopter when it comes to these things. I was stuck in WRG 6th ed for Ancients and could never really get to grips with 7th ed, although liking some of the mechanisms. FoG was a breath of fresh air to me when I played my first game this month. My opponent checked round and discovered last week that ALL his old clubs and opponents have converted over from the WRG stable.

If people don't like things they are welcome to not buy them, but to waste their lives moaning about others liking them…..

I have not even HEARD in 30 years of gaming of some of the rule sets advocated or just mentioned in this thread. FoG has gone for ,and won a volume market. Personally, as a businessman, I believe every one of their claims to have a sound basis in fact. Look at their Amazon ratings in various countries, for instance. Many rule sets can't get onto such platforms due to their amateurism and poor sales, (both historical sales and prospective)

The use of photos and proper explanation of potential problems beats all other publications hand down. Impetus have a creditable go. WAB – okayish. I have just checked 6 other rule sets I have – poor production, hard to read, hard to understand, inconsistent, deeply nerdish, incompatible with anybody else;s basing etc.. FoG have cleverly leapfrogged onto already popular basing conventions and 'points' concepts. A winner! When the Renaissance book comes out I will throw the rest away.

Final point. these rules and their supplements may save several smaller manufacturers from financial ruin. WAB supplements boosted El Cid figures and related stuff big time. Ditto Chinese armies. Ditto Hannibal etc. Renaissance wargaming in several countries has almost died out, although the good sales of the recent TAG ranges show many people are still very interested. Roll on the oddly named supplements and obscure armies. Each will rejuvenate somebody's dying range.

Moderation in all things.

It is another rule set, neither more nor less. It is neither Saviour nor Antichrist. Let's pull back the hyperbole and, more importantly, the perceived hyperbole on the part of others.

Those who are saying that they have no optimism for it are not, generally, saying that they believe that it should not be printed and that nobody should ever play it. They are only saying that they don't expect to play it.

Those saying that they love FoG and that it has reinvigorated their interest in the hobby should not be perceived as saying that this is the best rule set ever and that all other games should stop being played.

I play FoG and it got me into Ancients. I have no interest in FoG Napoleonics but welcome every single person into the hobby that will play those rules. I will not abandon comraderie with any grognard that takes those rules up and likes them.

Mike Snorbens is essential right in his critique.

FoG was over hyped long before publication and the hype seems to be starting again with these variants.

There was a lot of known, if not necessarily respected, expertise in the team that created it and that gave the project a certain degree of credibility.

It was possibly a good merketing strategy.

However at the end of the day FoG has proved to be another reasonable set amongst many (and I'll admit not my first choice)

How much enthusiasm any hype can generate for further period FoG variants remains to be seen but I suspect the will be more "suck it and see" and "wait for other other guy to try them" next time round

"Personally, as a businessman, I believe every one of their claims to have a sound basis in fact."

Or that you are taken in by marketing hype just like others. A number of their claims are either immeasurable or totally unfounded.

Stop polluting the

Renaissance Boards

with a discussion of Napoleonics!!!!!! Take your trash talk elsewhere!!