Help support TMP


"FoG-N" Topic


39 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Field of Glory: Napoleonics Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Product Reviews Message Board


Action Log

30 Dec 2016 7:00 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from Napoleonic Discussion board
  • Crossposted to Field of Glory: Napoleonics board


Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

3,218 hits since 31 Mar 2012
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

John de Terre Neuve Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2012 2:58 p.m. PST

I have started up a review of FoG-N on my blog. Part 1 (posted) covers a general overview as well as basing, and unit composition. Part 2 will cover the game sequence and mechanism as well as command and control.

John

link

Clay the Elitist31 Mar 2012 4:54 p.m. PST

When you fell for the crap about basing not being important, it was clear you're a fanboy. You followed that with "Battalions don't matter"….

Thanks for putting the effort into your review, it helped me learn all I need to know.

John de Terre Neuve Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2012 5:08 p.m. PST

WOW, now I know why you call yourself "the elitist". Not much more I can say!

Like I said

I have none of the biases and deep seated resentments that seem to pervade the minds of les grognards

All I can say is WOW.

Best wishes,

John

Maxshadow31 Mar 2012 5:55 p.m. PST

Another excellent review John! Please don't tempt me into buying yet another rule set.
Clay that was needlessly aggressive, insulting and ignorant.
Did his lack of respect for basing make you want to cry?
Did you know that traditionally when you use quotation marks, that's these things "" it means your quoting the author. Yours wasn't even a paraphrase.
No balanced person could read that review and take away that he is a "Fan Boy" (see how I used it?)

Mithmee Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2012 6:08 p.m. PST

The thing that is putting me off on to this ruleset is that they made it a Regiment based game.

I much prefer battalions.

So not sure that I will be picking it up.

George Krashos31 Mar 2012 6:22 p.m. PST

I have the rules and have given them a skim through. They'll sit on my shelf for a while before I top back to digest them in detail. Lasalle is my small scale rules set of choice and was hoping that FOG-N would provide a great alternative. But I'm with Mithmee – the regiment thing has really put me off as I'm a 28mm gamer and just can't get my head around how I would base up British to represent individual battalions (which is my preference from an aesthetic point of view). All the other nations usually fought in some sort of regimental set-up so it's not so bad, but the Brits are giving me conniptions.

-- George Krashos

Clay the Elitist31 Mar 2012 7:27 p.m. PST

Yeah, I fit in well around here.

I guess you missed the part of my message where I thanked you for "putting the effort into your review". But that's okay. I'm married with children, and used to living with people who only hear what they want to hear.

Basing standards are important. If FOGN is supposed to be a competitive ruleset, you damn well bet that it will matter to people. For my part, I simply will not rebase my collection. And my experience with this new genre of 'any basing will work' rulesets is very poor.

Battalions are important. I want to see column, line and square….and it was the battalion that fought in these formations. Ever since Napoleon's Battles, games of gotten away from representing these formations accurately. Why should we be okay with it?

So there's my response.

John de Terre Neuve Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2012 7:35 p.m. PST

I much prefer battalions

I'm a 28mm gamer and just can't get my head around how I would base up British to represent individual battalions (which is my preference from an aesthetic point of view)

and so do I, 28mm figures at a 1:20 ratio. But 2 French Corps requires 4000 figures, I would need another 4000 for the opposition for a two Corps aside game. Even if I could paint this many, the 12x5 terrain I have would not hold them. So what to do.

I waited for Blucher from Sam Mustafa, but not here yet and I doubt it will come for a while.

This ruleset just may work, I like it simple and I like big units on the table, it real does not trouble me what you call them. But it would be a lot of fun for me to try to recreate some of the bigger battles.

The thin red line is still a thin red line!

Anyway I shall see.

Thanks Max by the way, the TT can tool along with his own ruleset "Le Baton" I believe it is called. Maybe he can use them to beat some sense into himself. And I am certainly not trying to lead you astray.

John

GDrover31 Mar 2012 8:12 p.m. PST

I play at the brigade/division scale so that I can play out entire battles, so I won't ever play FOG:N on the tabletop, but I am VERY eager to play them on my PC. I wonder when it will make the conversion.

Whirlwind01 Apr 2012 12:00 a.m. PST

Battalions are important. I want to see column, line and square….and it was the battalion that fought in these formations. Ever since Napoleon's Battles, games of gotten away from representing these formations accurately. Why should we be okay with it?

I think this is where Napoleonic rules have one of their greatest problems. If you don't include battalion formations then you are missing out on something, no doubt. If you do include it, it means the Corps Commander, or higher, is effectively deciding the formation of every battalion in his command at all times – which I, but not others, think is even worse.

The only way around it is to play mega-games, but that is beyond most of us most of the time.

Regards

arthur181501 Apr 2012 2:53 a.m. PST

If one wants to play with battalions, and order them to form lines, columns and squares, then one can either:

focus on just one brigade's part in a larger battle,
or
choose battles with small focres, such as the South American Wars of Liberation or the Anglo-American War of 1812.

If, however, one wants to act the role of a commander of a corps or army in a large battle, one just has to accept that one can't/shouldn't worry about battalion formations and tactics.

Be clear what role one wants to play, and select rules accordingly – as Paddy Griffith demonstrated in his Napoleonic Wargaming For Fun.

I haven't seen FoG-N, so can't comment on it.

George Krashos01 Apr 2012 4:11 a.m. PST

It's clear I haven't been able to hurdle the irony of a rulebook which is littered with pictures of fabulous figures that aren't based in accordance with the ruleset. I'm re-reading the rules now – hopefully they leave a different impression this time.

-- George Krashos

Maxshadow01 Apr 2012 4:26 a.m. PST

ha yeah George I've noticed that regularly through out the years.

Who asked this joker01 Apr 2012 4:35 a.m. PST

Thanks for the review John. Looking forward to part 2.

John de Terre Neuve Supporting Member of TMP01 Apr 2012 4:38 a.m. PST

pictures of fabulous figures that aren't based in accordance with the ruleset

Yes I noticed that myself, the only pictures that show the recommended basing scheme are the diagrammes. I also noticed on the forum that some of the moderators actually do not use the recommended basing scheme.
If FOGN is supposed to be a competitive ruleset, you damn well bet that it will matter to people

I agree Clay, but I am a non competitive war gamer, I like historical battles. I would have thought that you would have enjoyed my post as I am on the side of not re-basing as you state you are.

I am quite puzzled by the belief that you can use the same ruleset to fight La Haie Sainte and the Leipzig. Thus my search through the rulesets.

I also like to support the hobby as much as I can, it really has given me a lot of pleasure over the last 5 years. If someone is going to go through the effort of writing a set of rules, it is not unreasonable to have a look.

John

Madmike101 Apr 2012 6:00 a.m. PST

I am a FOG R and FOG A fan (got every book) and have just recieced FOG N.

My initial impression is who the heck picked that font and page back ground?? The font is too thin and hard to read against the strips of the background. Its a horror, hard to read, I hate it, enough that after a few attempts I have put it down for now.

Also the pre-release forums talked about basing not being important but it does appear to matter. I could be wrong on that point.

John de Terre Neuve Supporting Member of TMP01 Apr 2012 6:07 a.m. PST

Also the pre-release forums talked about basing not being important but it does appear to matter. I could be wrong on that point

You could be! There is a whole section in the book devoted to using other basing schemes. Maybe if you have an actual look at the forums. link This is from one of the moderators on the Slitherine forum.

The footprint (but has 3 ranges) matters, not the actual basing,

I do agree the tables are sometimes difficult to read.

John

138SquadronRAF Supporting Member of TMP01 Apr 2012 7:21 a.m. PST

John

I will preface these remarks by saying that as a Napoleonic gamer since 1971 so I probably can count as one of the 'les grognards'. That said I would like to thank you, you gave a fair and balanced review of the rules, nicely illustrated and well presented. For that I thank you very much.

As a result of reading the review, will I bu a set? Probably not. I have found a set of rules that has grabbed my attention and has suched up m enthusiasm, so why would I? Will I play the rules, probably if one of my wargaming circle does get a copy.

It is through the dedication of individuals like you who do these reviews that the rest of us can make informed decision.

Yesthatphil01 Apr 2012 8:00 a.m. PST

FoG-N is already bringing in a lot of new players and enthusiasts (from its -AM and -R base) … They will base up/rebase according to what's in the book.

But I am firmly in the camp that 'basing doesn't matter' (except of course for retentive or unimaginative players for whom it will … because they think it will affect the game, it already does) …

nickinsomerset01 Apr 2012 9:23 a.m. PST

We are trying them out in 15mm tomorrow. I am also building 28mm 1809 Forces based for FOG (N) but reading some of the other rules they should be pretty versatile.

I enjoy playing large battles but if I wanted to have Bn and Coy commanders giving orders etc I would play a skirmish game as having about 40 players per side may pose a problem!

Tally Ho!

Clay the Elitist01 Apr 2012 11:51 a.m. PST

In multi-corps games, I prefer to think of each battalion as an individual member of a squad. So a division of 12 battalions would be similar to playing a WWII game where I had 12 men in a squad. My platoon might have three squads (Corps) and I might have several squads….(like a mulit-corps game)

You have to separate yourself from caring about each individual figure in every battalion. That's what slows the game down.

trailape01 Apr 2012 4:08 p.m. PST

After a quick skim through the rules (and I mean quick), I see that FOG-N fits into that space between Battalion Level games such as LASALLE, and Division level games like Age Of Eagles.
Picking 'Regiments' seems to be an attempt to stike a balance between fighting with a Corp on the table but also giving you the feeling you are managing battalions.
I'm keen to play a game and see how it works.
The read through (however brief) has pricked my interest. My buddy Stan and I will probably have a crack at the the Plancenoit scenario later this week. We have enough French for the battle, but might have to 'draft' some Confederation Of The Rhine troops to make up the Prussian numbers.
It is a beautiful book, and I don't have the concerns Madmike1 has mentioned, though I would have liked to have seen miniatures that were actually based for the game as opposed to lots of individual figures of miniatures based for some other rule set.
I think LASALLE will remain my preferred set of rules for battalion level games but then again FOG-N isn't pitched at that 'level' so maybe the two sets will be able to live in harmony

George Krashos01 Apr 2012 4:24 p.m. PST

I wonder if it would be kosher to play the 28mm basing/ground scale with 15mm/18mm figures (i.e. more figures)? That might give the units a visual appeal that I think is missing when trying to portray 8 x 28mm figures as the equivalent of 3 battalions.

-- George Krashos

trailape01 Apr 2012 6:22 p.m. PST

I wonder if it would be kosher to play the 28mm basing/ground scale with 15mm/18mm figures (i.e. more figures)? That might give the units a visual appeal that I think is missing when trying to portray 8 x 28mm figures as the equivalent of 3 battalions

Hey, why not 10 / 6mm on 28mm bases?

IainJL02 Apr 2012 7:40 a.m. PST

I like the regimental scale. What I really like is the attachments rule which finally give (some rather limited) uses to small units of cavalry, guns and skirmishers.

I dont think the basing sytem at 28mm (the scale I play) really makes a lot of difference and i will be still playing other systems with these bases (where I will likely be playing battalion scale games).

lapatrie8802 Apr 2012 7:53 a.m. PST

John --

Thank you for the thorough write-up on your blog. Can see some of the virtures of the game as well as some of the approximations. Not a bad approach for rescaling a corps-sized or larger command, particularly if division-sized commands are the smallest used for the game.

comte de malartic02 Apr 2012 7:54 a.m. PST

I played FOG N over the weekend and had a good time. However, it was the first game that I had played under the rules and the second for my opponent. We had to look everything up so it took a long time. I did have some problems with the rules being poorly written/edited in places.

Is it true that cavalry that initiate an assault and go down one level to disordered during the combat become spent?

We did not play it that way. This problem did not seem to mess up the game; but, I would like to find out how to do it correctly.

In general, the cavalry fights seemed inconclusive. If I am reading it correctly, I think you need to inflict at least 4 hits on your opponent to break them.

Also, I can see why the attacker is given some extra points for his army because it seems hard to attack.

V/R

Joe

John de Terre Neuve Supporting Member of TMP02 Apr 2012 9:28 a.m. PST

Thanks for the comments, I am about half way through a game and quite enjoying it. Once you get how the tables work you can go through a turn very quickly.

George Krashos: I suspect using 15 mm on 28mm bases is no problem, the figures are only notional, the footprint of each unit is the important bit.

comte de martin: The forum on Slitherine is very active and helpful. I would go there to ask your specific questions. link

I hope to have Part 2 of the post with a plates up in the next 24 hours on my blog.

John

VonBurge03 Apr 2012 2:22 p.m. PST

I appreciate the review.

I'm intrested in full size battles and would like to give these a try.

GGouveia05 Apr 2012 7:44 p.m. PST

Clay the elitist is a perfect example of Internet supposed know it Alls that help to kill the hobby.

pilum4006 May 2012 4:38 p.m. PST

HA! Clay, you did it again. You already killed wargaming as we know it in Texas but NOW you're a world-wide hobby killer! Great Job buddy…you're killin' me again.

(sarcasm button on) I'll never play miniature war games again because you're such an Internet know-it all. (sarcasm button off)

Clay the Elitist06 May 2012 4:57 p.m. PST

Funny how that happens.

They still got my money, though.

Re-reading my first post….I still agree with it. Take it however you want, I can't control other people's reaction.

malcolmmccallum06 May 2012 7:04 p.m. PST

Surprisingly, I and my play group are quite liking the rules. They give a good feel without being nitpicky. There is a nice flow and the command system is pretty elegant.

600 points of 1813 Prussians drove off a French attack today and won a marginal victory. Conscripts sure do make it difficult to get anything like a cohesive attack organized.

picture

picture

Sgt Steiner08 May 2012 3:25 a.m. PST

Hi

Can I ask where you obtained your 'gaming mat' from ?

Cheers

malcolmmccallum08 May 2012 6:21 a.m. PST

Hotz mat

seldonH08 May 2012 6:46 a.m. PST

very pretty !!!!!

really looks great, congrats !!

cheers
Francisco

MikeKT09 May 2012 10:01 p.m. PST

I like the look of the Hotz mats and the double-sided option which I am guessing would allow both farmland and plain grass options.

The inconvenient thing for FOG or games using a similar size of board is the size. 72"x45" is 3 inches short. Or get the 72" x 90" (6" short of 8 feet long for a 5/6x8 game) and cut it down with a spare 72"x42" for some purpose. I wonder how much extra a custom map 3" wider would be.

Brett NZ15 May 2012 1:41 p.m. PST

I like the look of the mat as well and have just ordered one.

Hotz do 6' x 4' if you ask them for this by email. Price I have been quoted for the 6x4 is US$43.99 (plus postage).

Their email contact is erichotz@shaw.ca if you are interested.

VonBurge15 May 2012 6:12 p.m. PST

Nice mat for sure.

I bought the FoG:N rules. Looking forward to playing them as I like the approach they seem to be takig.

The one thing I do not like is that the rules are pretty difficult to sort out and the charts very confusing to me.

Fortunetaly I have a mate who has these rules and feels he has a good grip on them…so hopefully I'll be getting the hang of them soon enough.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.