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

I'm trying to 'right click' on the "Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board" link to remove it, but it's not working.

And I hope the Aussies like Napoleonics as much as the rest of us.

Awww, just joking….

Shhh…don't let us Nappy elitists know that you're joking. Napoleonics is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Napoleonics is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

It is?

I mean, it is

Not to me though

Fortunately

It would help if comrade Holly looked
a) At the title of the thread
b) where it was originally posted

It would help if comrade Holly looked…

I did indeed look. It covers Renaissance and Napoleonics, but Nappy-trash seems to be dominating the discussion.

See! Told ya….everybody is so serious!

I would ask why we would want the Renaissance people looking at our board anyway….

You know, I'll cave and say that FoG should work pretty well for early Renaissance. I mean, Renaissance is nothing more than Medieval with a bunch of shooty bang sticks right?!

There! That should satisfy the requirements for Renaissance cross posts.

As for the Aussies? Hmmmm….enjoy a Fosters while playing?

I think we have it covered now.

Re Comrade Holly's "I did indeed look. It covers Renaissance and Napoleonics, but Nappy-trash seems to be dominating the discussion"

Perhaps it's only a refleection of the relative number of posts originating from the Napoleonic Board compared with the the Renaiisance Board?

I welcome Slitherene and Osprey's foray into Napoleonics. Their rules can only help bring new gamers into the hobby and thus expand the number of potential customers for other rules, including Craig's and mine.

I trust their Napoleonic designer will be ready and willing to answer the questions which will arise.

Good luck! A rising tide floats all boats.

Bob Coggins

We definitely need the FOGN designers on TMP!

I believe FOG has replaced DBM in the gulf south tourny circuit as well

Yeah I fell for the FoG hype a year ago, preOrdered the rules from Amazon, was going to play Celts vs Romans using new WF plastic figures, got all excited!!!

Got the rules and went… ho hum, yawn, and a year on the figures still haven't turned up….

So…. not in any rush to try these rules out at all..

I'll let someone else be "first" and if someone I know rather than a fanboy says there really really good I just might think about buying them…

Mike Snorbens said "All of the above have in one way or another indicated their scepticism about these rules, particularly the Napoleonic version."
Yes, many are sceptical about it, but most weren't complaining about the marketing, which is what we were talking about.

"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. "
I don't think they are a small subset in the ancients wargaming community, and to describe DBM as a set of rules that "virtually no one else plays" is complete rubbish.

"Playtesting does not imply "stringent criteria". I know of other rulesets that were equally thoroughly playtested before publication."
Well I would say that thorough playtesting is part of stringent design criteria. And please name these other rulesets that were playtested by hundreds of people in thousands of games worlwide before publication.
What I can't understand here is why you're so against something, especially when it's a successful game that has got a lot of people back into ancients wargaming, and is a model for the way rules should be developed and produced. It's like you have a personal vendetta against FOG.

Is this thread demonstrating our capacity to split hairs faster than rabbits can breed?

I'm confused. Can we have a list of people who actually feel more negative than positive about this? Not me…I was just asking some questions to see if my collection would work with the rules.

Well you're on the Mike Snorbens Official List of FOGN Sceptics now Clay !

Marshal Mark,

Please don't presume to speak for me.

I bought the rules on hype. I was completely underwhelmed. My beef is specifically about the marketing and how the game did not deliver what was promised.

John

Where am presuming to speak for you ? I was saying people (apart from Mike Snorbens) haven't complained (on this thread) about the marketing, and as far as I can see you haven't.

And could you please explain where FOG didn't deliver on promises that were made ?

Maybe you don't like the game – that's fair enough, and not every game is to everyone's taste. But what promises were made that the game does not live up to ?

Clay, I would not be surprised if memebrs of both the FoGN and FoGR design teams monitor and post on TMP. I did see names from the AoG Ancients books as posters on TMP.

"Yes, many are sceptical about it, but most weren't complaining about the marketing, which is what we were talking about."

Well if they disagreed with me (that the marketing WASN'T hype) I would have expected them to say so. None of those names I listed did. Since I posted the list a couple of others have said they were not impressed with the marketing.

"I don't think they are a small subset in the ancients wargaming community, and to describe DBM as a set of rules that "virtually no one else plays" is complete rubbish."

Probably depends where you are geographically. Where I am, I know of noone who is playing DBM now.

"Well I would say that thorough playtesting is part of stringent design criteria."

No. "Thorough playtesting" (whatever that means) is a way of PROVING stringent design criteria, it is not a criteria in and of itself.

"And please name these other rulesets that were playtested by hundreds of people in thousands of games worlwide before publication."

Dirtside II, Stargrunt II, DBA.

"What I can't understand here is why you're so against something, especially when it's a successful game that has got a lot of people back into ancients wargaming,"

I don't think I ever said I was "against" FoG Ancients. What I DID say (and you yourself seem to take umbrage by it) is that I think Slitherine's blurb about FoGR and FoGN is rife with marketing hype that cannot be either measured or substantiated.

I get the impression that some people dont like any kind of commercialism in wargaming. If your a small 1 man company or family business who produces crap figures/rules people dont like to be too harsh. FOG, GW, WF, WG, etc get a harder time on these forums largely because of their size IMO.

Personally I think the hobby could do with a more commercial edge and I like these new "big thinking" people.

"hype" is a very subjective word. Was anyone lied to? I see no evidence of this….

"Well if they disagreed with me (that the marketing WASN'T hype) I would have expected them to say so. None of those names I listed did."
Yes they have – Clay has said so above.

"Probably depends where you are geographically. Where I am, I know of noone who is playing DBM now."
I don't know anyone who plays FOW. So should I conclude that virtually no-one plays it ?

As other people have agreed it is normal practice for companies to try to sell their products. The marketing claims they make frequently cannot be proven or disproven. A company wanting to sell it's product is obviously going to highlight what it perceives to be its good points. It's going to say "this product is great and we think you should buy it". And that's exactly what they are saying. Would you be happier if they substantiated their claims with sales figures, internet forum statistics, wargaming expertise of the design team, etc ?

"I get the impression that some people dont like any kind of commercialism in wargaming. If your a small 1 man company or family business who produces crap figures/rules people dont like to be too harsh. FOG, GW, WF, WG, etc get a harder time on these forums largely because of their size IMO.

Personally I think the hobby could do with a more commercial edge and I like these new "big thinking" people."

Thanks Blucher!

Over 35 years of gaming I've concluded gamers are cheap with regard to rules. Old time gamers had photocpied rules – or the no frills of the WRG. We got used to it. Yes, that still how a couple of rule sets that I use today are.

I for one like the look of FoG – I was excited to get my copy. I think they are a great advantage to ancient gaming and they are clearly written with lots of examples. They are readable.

My wife is a technical writer – her comments of DBM boil down to the fact its the worst writing she's seen. She was, impressed by FoG.

My problem with ancients is more to do with with tournament mindset of acient players.

I am looking forward to FoG Renaissance – I'll let me dust off my figures. No one here really liked the DBR rules – even if they played DBM and I can't get interest in the Gush rules.

FoGN has excited a lot of passion amongst the Napoleonic crowd. BUT that period has a huge choice in rules compaired to say Renaissance.

Elliott

"Yes they have – Clay has said so above."

Well OK, that's one off the list …

"I don't know anyone who plays FOW. So should I conclude that virtually no-one plays it ?"

Maybe. I don't know anyone that plays FOW either!

"As other people have agreed it is normal practice for companies to try to sell their products."

Nothing wrong with that.

"The marketing claims they make frequently cannot be proven or disproven."

Therein lies the problem. It is thus just so much bovine excreta.

"A company wanting to sell it's product is obviously going to highlight what it perceives to be its good points. It's going to say "this product is great and we think you should buy it"."

Nothing wrong with that either. Personal testimonials and reccommendations often go a long way in that regard.

"And that's exactly what they are saying."

No, that is exactly what they are NOT saying. They are saying things like:
"that took the gaming world by storm." Immeasureable.

"that should prove equally exciting for the wargaming community." Immeasurable – how do you measure exciting?

"are being developed to the same stringent criteria" Unsubstantiated – the design criteria are not stated.

"wargaming experts" Unsubstantiated – who are these experts and what is their claim to be experts?

"challenging, but not overwhelming complexity and exciting playability" Immeasurable.

"realistic deployments and battlefield tactics" Immeasurable. Will someone please define "realistic"?

"flaming arqebus's" Inaccurate – both historically and grammatically. Arquebuses don't "flame".

"accurately reflect the reality of conflict" Immeasureable.

"muddy battlefields" Inaccurate – not all of them were by any measure.

"cannon barrages" Inaccurate – barrage is a term coined in WW1

"bloody cavalry charges." Inaccurate and probably immeasurable.

"It covers a broad period from … 1792, and ending with .. 1815." Inaccurate – 23 years is hardly a "broad period".

"has re-invigorated the wargaming community playing this period." Immeasurable.

"Would you be happier if they substantiated their claims with sales figures, internet forum statistics, wargaming expertise of the design team, etc ?"

In a word, yes. In my professional capacity that is EXACTLY what I would expect a potential supplier to do.

Well, just hope FOGN is more playable than FOG Ancients. Perhaps with fewer differences in weapons types, etc. it'll be less cumbersome. There is hope.

Mike – it looks like you can cross another one of your list from 138squadrons comment above.

I'm beginning to see your mindset now, Mike. You don't know any DBM players so you conclude that virtually no-one plays it. You say the same may be true for FOW (which I suspect is one of the most played WW2 miniatures games at the moment). So I can see why you think that FOG has not "taken the ancients gaming community by storm" over the last year. You haven't seen it near you, so it can't be the case.

And what's more, you expect every marketing claim made by any company to be measurable and substantiated by evidence. I expect you spend a lot of time complaining about television adverts then.

I've just read your last post again – I can't believe you're complaining that they refer to muddy battlefields !

John you will be trading various numbers of concepts when drifting from a FoGA or FoGR era to a FoGN era.

If the Army lists include India, you still have many of the weapons including Elephants that you have in FoGA. Even in an American situation you will ahve many of the same weapons.

So is FoGN going to be limited to Europe? That would reduce the number of weapon classes as you point out. However there still would be a number of troop classifications based on training style (quick or standard march/ columns vs lines/ skirmish capable) or experience( good, poor, etc)

"You don't know any DBM players so you conclude that virtually no-one plays it. You say the same may be true for FOW (which I suspect is one of the most played WW2 miniatures games at the moment). So I can see why you think that FOG has not "taken the ancients gaming community by storm" over the last year. You haven't seen it near you, so it can't be the case."

Since there has never been a proper survey of the wargaming community, there can only be anecdotal eveidence as to the popularity of any rules set.

"And what's more, you expect every marketing claim made by any company to be measurable and substantiated by evidence."

Um … don't you?

"I expect you spend a lot of time complaining about television adverts then."

Don't watch television. Don't have one – I refuse to pay the extortionate license fee.

I was right.
Hairs split 17
Rabbits born 12

I just bought Ambush Alley last week (and Motor Pool today!) and I find them to be one terrific set of rules. Yes, they are a bit abstract, but they appear as if they will run a fast, exciting game.

Not my post. :-/

Sorry for the tone Marshal Mark. I was grumpy this morning. Had a rough day. I'm better now.

The hype was inaccurate in that it is supposed to attract novices and experts alike. That sounds to me like a simple game with plenty of chrome. What you get is a complex game with lots of chrome. I would never recommend this game to a novice. It's just too complex. Being a veteran gamer for 30 years now, I can safely say that i like simpler games which are easy to understand but leave you with interesting tactical decisions. After reading through FoG 3 times, I decided to sell.

138Squadron RAF,

Well said. With FoG and WAB and FoW there is the chance of attracting new gamers. After all what self respecting Warhammer player would take historical miniatures seriously when he sees photocopied or black/white rules and have to listen to old guys bemoan the $2.00 USD figure? Ten year olds who play Warhammer regularly spend $30/50.00 at GW stores each week.

Me? I hope WAB, FoG, FoW et al are incredibly successful, for the more successful they are the greater the growth in the hobby.

What is curious is there are many in the hobby, old gamers and small businessmen who don't want the hobby to grow for their own personal reasons.

Sad.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

To be fair, they don't want it to grow in the perceived wrong direction. There isn't, I don't think, a force of grognards that want the hobby to die out when they die. Just a couple.

Old wargamers never die, they just shift to rules with the saving throws.

(Is that it? FoG doesn't have them. No imortality)

John – FOG isn't the game for you, which is fair enough. You don't like that kind of game, for the reasons you have given. But I still can't see that promises were made that were not kept. I've just had a look through the news section of the Slitherine website from last year, and nowhere did they say that FOG would be a simple game. The very nature of what FOG aims to achieve means that a simple game is just not possible. However, the writing style of the books means that the mechanics should be understandable by most people, includes novices. Indeed, I have read complaints that the narrative style of the rulebook caters too much for beginners – which goes to show that you cannot please everybody !
I wouldn't recommend FOG to someone who likes simple games, and I wouldn't recommend it to someone who is only going to play ancients occassionally. It's the sort of game you really need to play regularly to get the most out of it.

Well said. With FoG and WAB and FoW there is the chance of attracting new gamers.

That's a fair point, but so far I have seen little evidence for it. What brings the youngsters into the hobby is GW. If you let them play in the same place that the old timers play some get attracted to the historicals. What rules they are depends on what is played. Localy the newcomers have been attracted by PBI, Rapid Fire, Impetus etc. as we don't play FoW or WAB.

After all what self respecting Warhammer player would take historical miniatures seriously when he sees photocopied or black/white rules and have to listen to old guys bemoan the $2.00 USD USD figure?

As for rules and glossy production not sure that makes much difference. A well presented game does – they get pulled in by the spectacle of the figures. Once they are playing if they have a good time they come back for more.

Fred,

Actually FoW has made a lot of money attracting the older Warhammer gamers. As the owner is a former GW stock holder it is not surprising.

Bob

Actually FoW has made a lot of money attracting the older Warhammer gamers. As the owner is a former GW stock holder it is not surprising.

I don't doubt it, but that's not the same as attracting new blood. In my experience that's down to GW God bless them, and the youngsters switch to whatever the grognards are playing. It is always difficult to work out how many of the sales actually transfer into played games too. I have FoW, FoG and WAB, but haven't played them, but then I'm a rules junkie and they weren't asking $750 USD a pop for them! :-) I think a lot of people buy them to look at the pretty pictures. I have a lot of the BF models though along with other 15mm WW2.

*About simple games*

That was my big point for buying the game. In that, I was mislead. Don't know what else to say. The 3-4 hour thing is a bit of a put off but I generally can get that time block occasionally. So that is not a deal breaker. It's just a bit longer than I would like to play. I'm one of those who would rather play two 2 hour games than one 4 hour game.

I wouldn't recommend FOG to someone who likes simple games, and I wouldn't recommend it to someone who is only going to play ancients occassionally. It's the sort of game you really need to play regularly to get the most out of it.

That we can agree on!

John

I think this crossover between Renaissance and Napoleonic gamers has been very enlightening. Although I hope it never happens again. It turns out that all those horrible, terrible, nasty things people have been saying about Napoleonic gamers is …… true.

Nevertheless, I don't see why anyone would get upset about the public relations news release from Osprey. This is what they get paid for. I'm surprised that not everyone knows this. If you get upset about this then maybe that indication that it's about you not them.

As for a new set of rules for the Renaissance, I think that's fine. Maybe this will draw people into Renaissance gaming from ancients. This is only a good thing. Whether or not they adequately cover Renaissance gaming, I'll let you know when the rules come out.

As to its affect on Napoleonic gaming, I haven't got a clue. You guys seem to take a whole other approach to gaming than we do in Renaissance gaming. We may fight tooth and nail over historical interpretations over the use of pikes and matchlocks (I'm usually right ) but when it comes to rules it's pretty much "oh, you use those rules – cool – I use these." You guys seem to want to go for the throat of the rule's writer. So let me suggest one thing that is guaranteed to make Napoleonic gaming fun = valium.

Rich

"the public relations news release from Osprey. This is what they get paid for."

The press release was from Slitherine Strategies, not Osprey. Osprey get paid to publish books. Slitherine get paid to publish games. Interestingly enough, Slitherine's main buisness is game software not rules (presumably hence the partnership with Osprey).

Hmm .. you know perhaps that explains a lot. The sort of marketing hype found in the press release would be much more at home on the back of a game disk.

Rich,

I'm primarily a Napoleonic gamer now and what you say is true I'm afraid. ;-)

We Napoleonic gamers may fight tooth and nail too over historical interpretations – no one please bring up the bricole – but the problem is you add in the fights over rules as strongly.

Now I'm with you on rules. I play one of the less popular sets – Napoleonic Command – and enjoy them a lot. I've friends who love "Empire" and can't stand "Napoleons Battles", plus those who see it the other way round. Don't know why, but I accept it and will play either on occations.

Becuase the Napoleonic period is so short 23 years, of which typically only 10 are gamed the gamers look for detailed rules that reflect their preception of national characteristics. The complaint seems to be that FoG will be too generic.

Elliott

Strategically, I expect/suspect this development has come from Osprey realising that FoG has had a multiplier effect on the sale of their other books. Tactically I imagine they will have looked at their range and reminded themselves that Nap books are a large portion of their overall range.

FoG books are historical wargaming products that that are available on most town and city centre high streets – the positive long-term cross-over benefits for the hobby of that cannot be exaggerated.

Battlefront, Osprey/Slitherine and Warhammer Historical [and GW!] have produced items that have raised the standards in all areas of the hobby – rules design, production standards, painting, modelling – even sportsmanship could be said to have improved.

If you work out what you can buy for the same price as an Xbox game then these products/packages are very good deals.

Of course they are doing this to make money – but they have realised that to make money they need to do this WELL – which I would suggest is a more accurate definition of marketing than others that have appeared in this thread.

The BIG LIE is that wargaming is a single, focussed hobby. Different people want different things from the before, during and after of these games. That some people are unable to express themselves beyond 'X is ' is slightly depressing…

It is rather unlikely that anyone will be forced to buy or use these games against their will.

Straight up and simple the Historical Hobby needs and injection of capital and commercialism to draw out some proper competition within the market.

The FOW model works as it builds on the foundations that GW set up in the younger community for gaming, if this is now being translated to aincents as well as naps good for them.

These rules sets offer an opportunity to swell the ranks with younger people who will eventually be our future game designers and model designers.

To snub it and call it humdrum is to stick your head in the sand and claim everything is allright while someone kicks your exposed rear!

Thankfully i guess it won't stop the anorak wearing die hard who is brandishing his creased and coffee stained 50c photocopy of a outdated WRG edition rules set, as he plays with figures cast in 1978 from playing and mubling about the good ol' days. They still have some element to play in the hobby i guess.

The 'Da Vinci Code' does not set young people on the road to reading Dostoyevski anymore than American Idol sets people on the path toward Donizetti's Lucia de Lammermoor.

All interest-generating products are not to be celebrated.

That said, we really don't know if FoG Napoleonics will be a good game or a bad. If it turns out to be a good rules set then I hope that it will be embraced by young and old alike. If it turns out to be a bad set then it should be derided and mocked (if anything should be).

What we should not do is pre-judge. What we should all be doing is voicing loudly to the designers that there is no interest in bad rules. Every one of us is capable of making our own bad rules (and most of us have!). Give us the quality that backs up the advertising rhetoric and hyperbole.

Thank you Malcolm.

"Give us the quality that backs up the advertising rhetoric and hyperbole."

I think that's what most of us have been trying to say

OK, that being said, can you get this Nappy trash off the purity of our Renaissance board?

Rich

Gotta love the joys of cross-posting.

I have been going to the US HMGS-East cons for years now. In the early days every other game being played was Napoleonics with some ACW thrown in. Today it is getting rare to see either one. And when Fire and Fury hit the stores, ACW game-numbers were off the chart. But that was long ago.

In spite of what is being said here, FoG has most likely been a financial success for the author(s) and publisher. It makes perfect sense for them to branch out into the void of Napoleonic gaming. I can guarentee that when the rules come out, they will sell like hot cakes and the number of Napoleonic wargames at the cons will increase substantially. Will it be as good a game as what is out there now? That will be up to each of us individually. But like it or not it will be popular, sell and get used.

We should support any new rule system for our hobby. Or at least encourage it. If you want to play Empire and love it, that's fine. FoG Napoleonics shouldn't be a threat to you.

Mike B

Re-Comrade Knapton's "OK, that being said, can you get this Nappy trash off the purity of our Renaissance board?"

a) Don't blame the respondents look at the initial cross posting.

b) You don't have to open the thread

c) Most of the postings are about FoG and Slitherines methodology in promoting Renaissance or Napoleonic variants therefore applicable to either period blessed (or cursed) by the prospect of being FoGged.

d) Using the derogative term "Nappy" (which of course in British usage is equivalent to "diaper") and identifying such postings as "trash" displays severe periodist tendences, which is not politically correct. If we want to kick racism out of soccer then we should likeways kick periodism out of wargaming.