"From Befuddled to Mystified" Topic

2010 has seen me abandon DBMM for Field of Glory in a search of more fun in my wargaming.

Anyway, last weekend I managed to play FOG in the Northern League doubles competition at Halifax without making a complete fool of myself. So this feels like a good time to review my experience with Field of Glory from mystified novice to first time competition player.

Full article bit.ly/9VPpli

--
Martin Stephenson
vexillia.blogspot.com

Good read Martin.

Bloody hell! That was quick and thanks.

--
Martin Stephenson
vexillia.blogspot.com

" ---- a search of more fun in my wargaming."

That does seem rather like a switch from grey to beige in this context!

Good, thoughtfully written blog posting, Martin. I'm pretty sure neither game would be to my taste, but you've explored the pros and cons very well.

Martin,

Nice blog post. I will follow along to see where FoG takes you. I have the rules and have read through them but I haven't been motivated enough to actually play them. Everyone has their own definition of "fun" in a wargame. Do you play mostly in tournaments or more just casually?

Ken

Do you play mostly in tournaments or more just casually?

I play mainly casually but for the past four or five years have used competition play to test myself and my understanding of the rules.

Thanks for the comments guys.

--
Martin Stephenson
vexillia.blogspot.com
amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia

Martin, thanks for a interesting and balanced assessment of FOG. A friend of mine has a Mongol army but is a bit fed up of using it for DBM (not got as far as DBMM yet)as the rules don't replicate the 'shoot and scoot' tactics used by Mongols and other 'steppe' armies. He has been seriously considering switching to FOG because it allows horse archers to shoot without having to be in base to base contact with the enemy. How have you found FOG for Mongols?

sometimes i forget if its my turn or the opponents!! DOH !!

must be a sign of old age….

A nice summary of what's wrong with FOG. I couldn't agree more. I tried it and it made my head spin. I was lucky enough to get into a group playtesting the Tactica II rules by Arty Conliffe. I have found them to be a really fun set of rules easily learned and very enjoyable. Supposedly, Arty is very close to puiblishing them and there is a group in England that uses them: caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com
Highly recommended to give you more fun in wargaming.

I REALLY like Arty and his rules. But Tactica (which I had fun with) has been coming out since 2000. I remain hopeful but not surprised if they don't come out anytime soon.

I own FOG and am not interested. Haven't ever been interested in DBM after playing a few times.

I'm actually hoping Field of Battle Ancients comes out soon.

Tourney playing is not my cup of tea.

Thanks,

John

Thank you. This has immunized me against foolish thoughts of getting into FoG for the next few months.

I think the only thing I do not agree with is about the unit stats, whose flexibility I like. But everything else is.. ..just as it looks from the outside. Slow, cumbersome, ultimately boring.

How have you found FOG for Mongols?

80% of my games have been with my Mongol army so most of my comments apply to them.

I would say that you have to be patient and be prepared to create opportunities if none are offered by the enemy.

--
Martin Stephenson
vexillia.blogspot.com
amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia

How have you found FOG for Mongols?

80% of my games have been with my Mongol army so most of my comments apply to them.

I would say that you have to be patient and be prepared to create opportunities if none are offered by the enemy.

"Shooty horse" armies have proved pretty successful in FoG. However, you do have to play for the "long game", using manoeuvre to pull apart more solid opponents, waiting for the shooting to take effect and then being able to exploit it.

"Shooty horse" armies have proved pretty successful in FoG. However, you do have to play for the "long game", using manoeuvre to pull apart more solid opponents, waiting for the shooting to take effect and then being able to exploit it.

Quite right.

--

Martin Stephenson
vexillia.blogspot.com
amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia

Good write-up. I think both games are pretty complex. I think most of the extra detail in both games are pure speculation. Neither game is my cup of coffee. In both cases, the games allow for too many shades of gray. One needs to be a better mathematician than a general to be successful.

However, both games have quite the following so the writers of both must be doing something right!

Just goes to show how different people's experiemces are. I have been playiong FoG since it came out and have had a good deal more fun than I ever did with DBM or WAB (Both of which are good games I enjoyed, no knock intended). I just feel confused whan people say FoG is boring- likely they are professional jugglers who specialise in poisoned chainsaws while tightropewalking over aligator pits.

It seems that there is a certain degree of Marmite factor in FoG. Either you love it or you hate it.

For me I found FoG a really refreshing change after a decade or so of very intense DBM. FoG is IMO easier to explain, simpler to play and much more fun than DBM.

I can't compare it to Tactica or WAB but I am happy and will continue to play it for the forseeable.

I have tried a few other ancients sets and none of them have grabbed me.

Just goes to show how different people's experiemces are. I have been playiong FoG since it came out and have had a good deal more fun than I ever did with DBM or WAB (Both of which are good games I enjoyed, no knock intended).

Actually Martin seems to agree with you, so the experience is not so different.

Martin has carefully laid out the advantages and challenges of the rules, a very balanced approach to a rules review and one missing from the atmosphere of extreme partisanship that seems to surround the subject. It's interesting but perhaps not surprising that people who already feel disinclined to like the rules are focusing on the negatives he laid out and ignoring the positives and his overall assessment that he likes the rules.

As to the review itself, think it's spot on myself. There is quite a good game, though a rather indecisive one, under all the dice and playing phases. I don't think battles should always be quick and decisive, but I've found that they virtually never are, which is not quite right either. I suspect something may be done about that when a second edition is published, which I assume eventually will happen.

That's something to remember -- it's just the first edition of a brand new system of rules. Those of you who remember the very first edition of DBM might compare FoG quite favourably indeed.

Martin has carefully laid out the advantages and challenges of the rules, a very balanced approach to a rules review and one missing from the atmosphere of extreme partisanship that seems to surround the subject.

Aw shucks. I'm blushing now. ;-)

It's interesting but perhaps not surprising that people who already feel disinclined to like the rules are focusing on the negatives he laid out and ignoring the positives and his overall assessment that he likes the rules.

I spotted this too.

--
Martin Stephenson
vexillia.blogspot.com
amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia

There is quite a good game, though a rather indecisive one, under all the dice and playing phases. I don't think battles should always be quick and decisive, but I've found that they virtually never are, which is not quite right either.

Always interesting to see how peoples experiences differ. I've found FoG pretty decisive with a good majority of the games I play ending with one or the other army broken. Perhaps it is something to do with the armies I use :-)

If there are some things you really dont like in a game and then some one comes and tells you: "Everything you dont like is in there, and then.." The part after the comma is going to be a bit unconvincing.

Glad people enjoy the game though.

If there are some things you really dont like in a game and then some one comes and tells you: "Everything you dont like is in there, and then.." The part after the comma is going to be a bit unconvincing.

Fair point but my post says "This is what is good and .." so what does this say about people's preconceptions?

--
Martin Stephenson
vexillia.blogspot.com
amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia

The order in which this comes is maybe not too important.

It says that we all got preconceptions. Life would be hell otherwise.

If there are some things you really dont like in a game and then some one comes and tells you: "Everything you dont like is in there, and then.." The part after the comma is going to be a bit unconvincing.

Depends on how openminded you are.