"Online Review of FOG Nappy's Triumph of Nations" Topic

Just in case you missed the previous post due to the rather generic subject line (and I sure don't read every post on this board):

link

While wargamer.com does have a business relationship with Matrix/Slitherine.Osprey, the new editor is really trying to reach out to other wargaming genres, particularly if they are historical. Please look around.

Regards, Colonel Bill

So, we have a review of a product on a website that has a business relationship with the publisher of said product.

The value of that review is precisely……nothing!

Actually no. My understanding is that one of the principals is the owner of both, but they pretty well leave us alone on this stuff – actually caution us about any favoritism – and most folks who know me will attest that I shoot pretty square.

Besides the relationship you are citing is actually pretty tenous. In this case the REAL Osprey connection is more thru the PC version of FOG. I mentioned this issue not only as a disclaimer, but also because wargamer.com has traditionally been considered a PC only gaming site due to its unofficial tie to Matrix.

And don't forget that I actually write and publish a competing product – Age of Eagles.

So just read the review and see what you think.

Regards, Colonel Bill

Ah Collin, the voice of diplomacy. Methinks you will be adding more fans to your readership.

The Colonel, as stated above, publishes a rival set of rules. The review is not about FoG N but the army lists. Rather objective review in my opinion. But I suppose that since you bothered to read the review, Collin, this isn't news to you then ;-)

So glad you have so much to add to this conversation. Being that the Colonel announced the indirect relationship with the website and the publisher of said army lists beforehand, it is so nice to know that your restating the obvious was needed.

Well ancientsgamer, when there is a declared link between the publisher and the website, and if what I stated is obvious, what is the point of the review? A review needs to be both objective (which this may be) and also seen to be objective, which this cannot be by the very nature of the link.

I'm mellow, so don't worry about it. Let people read the review, consider the source and they can decide for themselves. If they perceive a problem, by all means Email the editor.

Ciao, Colonel Bill

and if what I stated is obvious, what is the point of the review?

And if what you stated is obvious, what was the point of stating it?

Bingo!

Well, given that the review was posted on the site, it is apparent that it was not obvious to everyone;).

Also, note the word "if" in the statement;).

I thought it was a pretty good review.

Yeah me too. A good review of a pretty pointless product.

Well actually the book is all about "points" but that's why I don't like it! :o)

However,the rules themselves get better each time I play them.

Any links to a good review of the main rules then? Thanks.

@Trajanus,

Well pointless is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm like you personally. I don't like point systems, like to play big battles as in Austerlitz size +, and they have to be historical, not pickup games. That didn't come thru in the review – I hope – due to one of my biggest pet peeves about reviewers. Too often they will criticize a rules set (or any product, really) because it doesn't work, when what they really mean is that it doesn't work FOR THEM! Its personal preference translated into a game defect.

FOG-N is not my cup of tea, but FOG-N does have a customer base for which it is spot on. Thus I try to judge the game on its ability to deliver a quality product to this clientele. Whether it floats my boat personally is irrelevant.

Ciao, Colonel Bill

That didn't come thru in the review

Not at all, commendably neutral.

I admit I'm not a fan of points based/competition style games but army list books are always a puzzle to me. I mean how many of those lists is the average player ever going to use after their purchase?

The remainder are just some level of passing interest as to the authors opinion on what's representative.

The irony of FoG(N) is that it lends itself excellently to much larger games than those building points based armies will be restricting themselves to.

These doughty lads like doing the research to set-up actual historical battles and thus are perfectly happy with the non-point based and all encompassing army lists that appear within the vast majority of Napoleonic rules presently.

I'm English and plead "Guilty as Charged" and am damned proud of the fact!

epic fail

Yep. I'll save the $35 USD and spend it more source material.

Screw TON. Screw Points System. Screw FOG in all it's incarnations!

Consider three words: "Flames of War".

Oops. Can't express my true feelings about this system, because those who are critical of Flames of Warhammer tend to get banned from TMP.

Likewise, some of the history behind these ratings is a bit suspect.

Screw TON. Screw Points System. Screw FOG in all it's incarnations!

Well I'm there on the first two but dissing FoG(N) alongside the rest of the FOGs is chucking the baby and bath water.

Wouldn't touch the others with a pole but FoG(N) is really good. Just ignore the "points" ethos and those who like to play individual games based around them. A lot of people are going to miss out if they think these rules are just for the Competition Junkies.

Wouldn't touch the others with a pole but FoG(N) is really good. Just ignore the "points" ethos and those who like to play individual games based around them. A lot of people are going to miss out if they think these rules are just for the Competition Junkies.

Agreed. These are very good rules.