| vexillia | 18 Oct 2013 9:19 a.m. PST |
Latest blog article: In January I wrote an article wondering why wargames rules are so complex. In it I used a table from the Field of Glory Renaissance (FOG R) rules as an example. Well this month I've stumbled across another inconsistency in FOG R that has me stumped. Read more … --
Martin Stephenson
The Waving Flag :: Twitter :: Auctions |
| Yesthatphil | 18 Oct 2013 9:39 a.m. PST |
What makes them think destroyed artillery always present an impassable obstacle to cavalry in the first place? Phil |
| vexillia | 18 Oct 2013 10:26 a.m. PST |
|
| clifblkskull | 18 Oct 2013 11:40 a.m. PST |
Actually destroyed art. Is not the obstacle as it is removed.
Captured or 'routed' gunners leave the art. That is the obstacle as I read what Martin posted.
We tend to blow them up more times then capture them so have not encountered too much trouble here.
Clif |
| Yesthatphil | 19 Oct 2013 3:30 a.m. PST |
Apologies for the terminological inexactitude. 'Destroyed' may be the wrong term to have used in a game that seems to make a difference between guns where the crews have all been killed and guns where the crews have all run away after some have been killed. I only really know the ECW sources but can't think of any accounts that would lead anyone to make such a silly distinction. It would also seem to incorporate a significant misunderstanding concerning the cavalry of the period (to whom abandoned guns would not have been a significant obstacle). I'm not aware of any re-crewing evidence either – in the ECW guns sometimes fire a few times before battle commences and that's about it. Of course the game covers a lot more than the ECW but it would be interesting to see the evidence from other periods. As Martin says … Sigh!
Phil
PS I'm playing the last few 'commitment' games of FoG-AM after which I am done with it. There are one or two Doubles tournament I enjoy socially (Usk … Badcon …) so I am planning on playing a little FoG-R – therefore such quirky nuances are good to know … thanks, Martin |
| vexillia | 19 Oct 2013 3:46 a.m. PST |
PS I'm playing the last few 'commitment' games of FoG-AM after which I am done with it. There are one or two Doubles tournament I enjoy socially (Usk … Badcon …) so I am planning on playing a little FoG-R – therefore such quirky nuances are good to know … thanks, Martin Ooh! An interesting snippet. So version 2 of FOG AM has finally seen you off. You should enjoy FOG R more despite the "nuances". See you in November. --
Martin Stephenson
The Waving Flag :: Twitter :: Auctions |
| Yesthatphil | 19 Oct 2013 7:11 a.m. PST |
Just between ourselves, of course  Phil |
Puster  | 19 Oct 2013 11:37 a.m. PST |
The idea is probably that artillery destroyed by shot takes some damage to guns and especially gunpowder, while that cleared in close combat does not, and is still serviceable. To be honest I could not find the passage where the rules state that "uncontrolled" artillery counts as obstacle to mounted troops.
I realize that the rules forbid mounted to move through OWN artillery, but where does it actually say you cannot move through uncontrolled artillery? |
| Nik Gaukroger | 21 Oct 2013 4:41 a.m. PST |
I'm not aware of any re-crewing evidence either – in the ECW guns sometimes fire a few times before battle commences and that's about it. Of course the game covers a lot more than the ECW but it would be interesting to see the evidence from other periods. Lutzen springs to mind – the Swedes capture the "ditch battery" on the Imperialist left and used it to some effect against it's former owners in the closing stages of the battle. FWIW the artillery issue is a well known "glitch" we need to sort out – should be in the next errata (whenever they are). |
| Yesthatphil | 22 Oct 2013 3:02 a.m. PST |
Thanks Nik – I'll have a look at what happened there … it certainly doesn't sound 'normal' but as above, it's the ECW material I'm more familiar with … Phil |
| Dexter Ward | 22 Oct 2013 5:21 a.m. PST |
Phil wrote:
PS I'm playing the last few 'commitment' games of FoG-AM after which I am done with it. There are one or two Doubles tournament I enjoy socially (Usk … Badcon …)
-------------------
I'm curious as to what has made you give up on the rules?
I find them fine for occasional ancient games; never tried using them in a tournament setting as I have no interest in that. |
| Nik Gaukroger | 22 Oct 2013 6:03 a.m. PST |
it certainly doesn't sound 'normal' but as above, it's the ECW material I'm more familiar with … It is certainly an infrequent happening, but we came across enough examples in the period covered by FoG:R to feel that it was justified as a rules mechanism for "period colour". Have to confess, however, that Lutzen is the only one I can recall off hand :/ Pretty sure there were no ECW examples as you say. |
discusses the limitations and challenges of working with a low-end 3Dprinter.