"Field of Glory (N) - Shock of the New!" Topic

Whoa!

OK I'm new to the FoG genre but Holy Hell! Talk about never use one word where three will do!

I've found some nuggets of ideas while panning the text and subject to playing, I think I'm going to like them but for God's Sake someone hire these guys an Editor!

And don't get me started on the type face and layout either!

Ha ha ha! I never was clever enough to translate sufficient of the ancients version to play a game of it. I think the huge list of what did and didn't constitute a complex move use to turn my eyes inside my lids.

Thanks for the warning about FoG (N).

I have to agree with Maxshadow. FoG ancients did not impress me what so ever. To much direction and all poorly written. It read alot like one of my college papers when I hadn't read the materials I was supposed to be writing on.

David

They are meant to be tournament systems so have to cover every eventuality. That being said, FOG:N seems to be much worse than the others. I've played both the other versions, but I'm having trouble following this one.

I actually found the mechanisms pretty straight forward, figuring our 90% of it from the QRS in the book. They are wordy though in the text, and the layout could be improved on.

I agree with Steve, probably done because of the competitive nature of the set.

John

Re-read John's comments folks. The QRS, FAQ and any player's index are key to learning the FoG system. As has been stated England and the USA are separated by a common language :-) A little bit of effort will help you to learn the rules. By the way, still MUCH easier to understand than Empire! lol

FoG Ancients plays very smoothly compared to some more simply written games – but if you want a quick to pick up and easy to play game for occasional ancients it wouldn't be my recommendation.

I can't think of any reason why it would morph over into the Napoleonic period where military systems had evolved significantly from the ancient world …

That said, too much manoeuvre is the main problem wth the ancients version and although that might be more appropriate for later periods I'd have thought the feel might be a bit too fussy for massed battles.

Phil
The again, what I've liked most of Napoleonic options has been the big battle version of Shako I (knowing that might put my comments in context )

I've played both the other versions, but I'm having trouble following this one

Well that's a relief I thought it was me!

As has been stated England and the USA are separated by a common language

As ever was but its a bit much when England and England are too! :o)

That's why I didn't get this after trying out FOGR. I was tasked with reading the rules and prepping the game, which definitely took some time to get the basic concepts down right. All in all, I thought it was a much more realistic set of renaissance era rules than many others, particularly in regards to formations. The main problems were that it wasn't much fun to play, turns took a little too long, and due to the incredible number of variations with movement and combat, every player really needs to own/have read the rules. It wasn't a bad set of rules, but not easy to teach to others and I wasn't sold on the suitability for group games.

I thought FoG(N) was more of a mist when compared to FoG(R)

But they are good rules.

I would disregard any comments from those that compare other FOG rules to FOG-N. A simple perusal of the forum and the yahoo group would reveal multiple comments re their difference.

Of the 5-6 Napoleonic rules I have played, I would say they are most similar to Lasalle.

John

FoG Ancients has a learning curve but IMO one worth persevering with.

This may be unfair but FoG Naps hasn't excited me much. I confess I haven't played it or even read the rules (!) but it doesn't seem "Napoleonic" enough & I'm happy with the rules I've used for years.

it doesn't seem "Napoleonic" enough

Ah! I'm always a sucker for that remark. What's the requirement for you?

BTW: We had a run through with the rules last night and I didn't feel that way to us. Although we did have to take a step back now and then to remind ourselves that each unit wasn't a battalion and that helped.

However, on the matter of Editing – My favorite so far:

"Guard Infantry formations were used by most nations. The Austrians for example had none."

OK the rest of the paragraph mentions some who did have Guards but running those two sentences ahead of it is just poor writing.

As a balance, last nights game test was pretty positive for a first time out and we could see some of the direction for the gameplay coming through our fumbling around.

Some good ideas in the construction already starting come through. My biggest concern would be that mainstream gamers might be put off by the unit scale or the "Competition Player" image.

mainstream gamers might be put off by the unit scale

You are right, people do not like notional units, I think their method though of relating the number of men in a unit (regiment or brigade) in a historical OB and then assigning a set number of small and large units on this basis is quite simple and an elegant solution to get around the problem of fighting large battles on smaller tables with less stands.

John

Have to agree with you John.

Of course people can and no doubt will argue its semantics but I prefer doing it this way than the Brigade equals a large single base method.

Granted you have to suspend disbelief to accept the non existent individual battalions are in various formations within the Brigade area here too but the change in shape of the units on the table is more pleasing, even if its not anymore correct.

BTW: People have spoken of likeness to Lasalle which I can see (got the rules, read but never played). Is it me or is there more than a nod to Principals of War in there too?

within the Brigade area

Yes another very clever concept in the rules. Disregarding the number of bases etc, but focus on the area that the unit takes on the table top also resolves multiple issues. Smaller units, smaller area….bigger units, bigger area.

Not familiar with Principles of War, so can not comment.

John

If the last thing done in your bound is movement; triggering responses from the opponent in their bound, then yes very much like PoW's turn sequence.

Field of Glory have just put up QRS sheets for FoGN on their site – a copy of these to hand would make the game run much more smoothly for new players.

As mentioned FoGN is definately not a morph of previous FoG rulesets I agree it has more in common with Lasalle than FoGA/M.

Once you get the sequence of play correct, the rules flow well and the key mechanisms are simpler and faster than in previous FoG sets.

I guess it is a very individual call as to whether the rules feel 'Napoleonic'. I might depend on whether for you 'Napoleonic' really means Peninsula, or if you first and formost picture European battlefields.

If the Peninsula and British armies are your thing, I can understand a preference for battalion level games.

Some random, very general observations:

1. Combined arms attacks are in theory entirely possible and 'on paper' not difficult to set up. However for some reason it is rare to see one on the table. Despite trying to set these up, I have only managed to do this about half a dozen times in all the games I have played (which must be pushing 60-80 by now). Not sure why, but a big plus for the rules in my view as many Napoleonic rules make it far to easy to 1-2 units with simultaneous cavalry and infantry assaults.

2. It is reasonbly fulhardy in FoGN for infantry to assault fresh, supported, enemy infantry without first softening them up with artillery or skirmish fire.

3. The flank and rear support rules are good, making it important to support your troops

4. Command control is simple and elegant, a 'pips lite' system which strikes a good balance between allowing freedom of action and providing restraints. Unless you have gone heavy on command control in making your list, you usually can't do everything you need to. Unlike DBMM you also have to consider whether to save some 'pips' for possible use later in the turn/opposing player's turn.

5. The attachments mechanism makes compiling army lists interesting and allows a player to try and optimise units based on how he plans to play the game.

6. Lots of player decision making built in throughout the turn sequence, not just in the movment phase.

7. The games often see an accumulation of attrition period, as each player seeks to degrade his opponent. There typically then comes a point where one side will suddenly and dramatically collapse – freqently as a result of an assult with fresh/steady troops at the right time. Quite realistic in my view.

8. We have played Waterloo (twice) and Austerlitz (once), large re-fights work a treat with the general concensus of participants being that FoGN works better for big multiplayer re-fights than any other set of rules we have used.

I'm afraid I may have developed into a bit of a cheerleader for the rules …

It is fair to say that they are not clearly written but are well worth giving a try IMO.

Cheers
Brett

Thanks Brett apreciate the info.

Field of Glory have just put up QRS sheets for FoGN on their site – a copy of these to hand would make the game run much more smoothly for new players

Bless you my son! :o)

I'm afraid I may have developed into a bit of a cheerleader for the rules …

Not at all, there's nothing there I would disagree with from my initial dabbling with them.

Great summary Brett, and your opinion is valued as you have actually played the game!

John

@Brett

Any link to the QRS as I just checked the slitherine site and wasn't able to locate it…

Thanks.

Never mind. I was able to locate…

for those that might like to see….

fieldofglory.com/fog_nap

Madcam.

Going to fieldofglory.com/news and clicking on "see more" in the top right and then the "QRS sheets here" link, auto sends you a Zip file.

About as straight forward as some of the rules book!

Mutter,Mutter,Mutter

Well it has to be said persistence – and boy do you need it – pays off!

In many ways I still find the writing and layout as mad as a box of frogs but when you start pushing the lead you start to see where the rules are coming from and they are pretty enjoyable.

Lots of things to master and certainly a game to make you think but the mechanics are good and there's plenty of involvement for players.

Certainly glad I made the purchase and actually looking forward to learning more ways on how you make tactics work properly rather than just blundering to a win! (or not)

Those links are now 404. Any alternatives?

Good question Last Hussar.

Bump

There will be new QRS sheets for version 2 before too long (probably about 2 month's away) that I'm sure will be available for download.

Will it be any use for version 1

Is not version 2 just a computer game?

Unfortunately, I don't think that the v2 QRS sheets will be of much use for version 1 games. FoGN has had a major overhaul in v2.

Wmyers, there is a version 2 of the computer game FoG Ancients. However the v2 we are talking about here is a new edition of the Napoleonic rules which are now at final proof read and editing stage.

Where would one sign up to receive notification of v2 release?
Just curious. Thanks!

I'll post something here as soon as it's available.

Meanwhile, there is a new facebook group 'FOG Napoleonics' which contains the current chatter regarding v2.

It's a closed group, but I'm sure if you send a facebook request to join you'll be able to access the site.

Cheers
Brett

Looks like 2nd Edition is soon to be available. Can't wait.

For more information, go to the Facebook FogN page.

The FoGN 2nd edition rules are now available through Amazon!!!

Just ordered mine.

The army books should be coming in the spring.

Yup. v2 Now available. v2 Triumph of Nations has been sent to the type-setters, to do their formatting and illustrations thing. Probably be a month or so until they have finish copysetting.