 Editor in Chief Bill   | 01 Dec 2016 8:25 a.m. PST |
Field of Glory was voted the game that people most regretted getting into. TMP link Why do you regret it? |
| CATenWolde | 01 Dec 2016 8:46 a.m. PST |
Err … I'm a classicist and thus math is not my strong suit, but isn't 22 (number of votes for Flames of War) more than 19 (votes for Field of Glory)? GW has a total of 41 if you take 40k and Fantasy together! |
| teboj17 | 01 Dec 2016 9:02 a.m. PST |
No regrets from me. I like /liked the game. Most of the people I have gamed with have switched over to L'Art de la Guerre. |
| RetroBoom | 01 Dec 2016 9:07 a.m. PST |
Bummed to see so many people regret FoW. :/ I don't play it any more either, but that doesn't change that I not only played it for years and enjoyed it, but I was left with tons of great 15mm wwii models that aren't license specific and I still constantly use with tons of new, different rulesets… |
| Dynaman8789 | 01 Dec 2016 9:14 a.m. PST |
Did they buy the game(s) before trying them? If you had fun playing them at the time what is to regret? |
 The Nigerian Lead Minister  | 01 Dec 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
Not me, I like the game. I just regret that DBX has a lock on most of the local ancients guys and I regret ever playing that one. |
| TKindred | 01 Dec 2016 9:57 a.m. PST |
I never card for it. Played several games but was put off by what I considered to be overly-complex rules and the accompanying rules lawyers. |
| idontbelieveit | 01 Dec 2016 10:04 a.m. PST |
We played for a year or two and had a lot of fun games. It was a bit of a grind. The only thing I really regret is how much money I spent on the army list books. |
| Who asked this joker | 01 Dec 2016 10:08 a.m. PST |
It was billed as an approachable game for novices and veterans alike. It did not live up to the hype. I bought it. I wanted to like it. I could not get through the rules. The computer game was a blast though. I played that to death! |
| Axebreaker | 01 Dec 2016 10:18 a.m. PST |
I tried to like it, but in the end it was about as much fun as watching paint dry. Christopher |
| mad monkey 1 | 01 Dec 2016 10:26 a.m. PST |
I didn't care for the rules. But Lord I do enjoy Madaxeman's tourney reports. He takes a dull (in my opinion, YMMV,)ruleset and makes it enjoyable. |
 ochoin | 01 Dec 2016 11:39 a.m. PST |
Not surprised by the poll results: it's a difficult set of rules to get your head around & requires a "learning curve" of effort to get into. They're our rules of choice. We use the 'Ancients' version for Punic Wars & the Bronze Age & have acquired the 'Renaissance' set for our latest period. Obviously, *we* like them which is all that matters. I feel no need to defend them or try to proselytize on their behalf. |
 Condotta | 01 Dec 2016 1:24 p.m. PST |
15mm FOG and FOGR are played and enjoyed by the lads I game with. No regrets, other than a nod to WAB for 28mms. |
| Nikator | 01 Dec 2016 1:26 p.m. PST |
I do not regret playing FoG. It gave me a few years of enjoyment, then I moved on with the crowd to ADLG. C'est la guerre. |
| madaxeman | 01 Dec 2016 3:04 p.m. PST |
My guess would be the key factor us the large number of army list books that were bought by obsessive completists (erm, Wargamers…), many of which in fairly short order proved to contain very few viable or "different" armies. |
| Marcus Brutus | 01 Dec 2016 3:10 p.m. PST |
I regret FoG. With all the hype building up to its release and with Osprey publishing it I thought FoG sounded like the final set of ancient rules. We tried it but found the system was really a mismash of other sets. Nothing particularly innovative about it. |
| Yesthatphil | 01 Dec 2016 3:28 p.m. PST |
I think also the polls are going to be topped by really popular, really successful games like FoG or Flames of War … many of the 'boutique' games are going to equally if not more disappointing … but so few players play them/try them they'll never top a regret list. Obviously it isn't the total number of regretters that matters, it is the proportion of regretters. Phil
Je ne regrette rien
Ancients on the Move |
| andyfb | 01 Dec 2016 4:40 p.m. PST |
When I saw my first copy of FOG, I thought it was very well put together and looked great. Then I played it!, rolled lots of dice, and not much seemed to happen…was soooooooo boring! I like games with action and quick resolutions, I like DBA, Armati 2, Impetus, LADG and Triumph! |
| Joep123 | 01 Dec 2016 6:48 p.m. PST |
A group of us, got some books of it, started collecting armies and were all gung ho, some years ago.
And then our resident expert and ourselves would get bogged down trying to figure out the rules each time we played and our enthusiasm waned.
Into To The Strongest now…much easier. |
| doug redshirt | 01 Dec 2016 8:49 p.m. PST |
I liked it at first bought all the books, then got to playtesting Tactica II and never looked back. Wished I could get my money back on all the books. |
| Winston Smith | 01 Dec 2016 9:42 p.m. PST |
Never played it, so nothing to regret. |
 Yellow Admiral | 01 Dec 2016 10:48 p.m. PST |
I regret spending so much money on the FoG rules and scenario books. I had high hopes it would fill the hole ancients gaming life, but alas, it not what I wanted to play. Somebody in WA got a good deal on a stack of FoG books last May. - Ix |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 01 Dec 2016 11:16 p.m. PST |
but isn't 22 (number of votes for Flames of War) more than 19 (votes for Field of Glory)? whoops!  |
| martinwilliams | 01 Dec 2016 11:49 p.m. PST |
Enjoyed FOG a great deal (and FOW for that matter). Have moved on from FOG but primarily because my opponents did. I'm not sure any of the competitors are better. I cant believe people consider it too complicated. I always considered it refreshingly simple, but then my main ancients game before it was WRG 7th. Now that could be complicated. Martin |
| langobard | 02 Dec 2016 2:09 a.m. PST |
I'd been playing DBA/DBM when it came out. At it's simplest, the rule book didn't inspire me to even try a game (interestingly, I was annoyed by the 'base width' mechanic, which was new to me then, but which I am quite happy with now). So, I don't regret it, cos I never got into it. That said, I suspect the idea expressed above, that popular games will have greater numbers of people expressing regret is the correct one, and that this is actually an indicator that FoG (and indeed FoW) are quite successful systems no matter what those who dislike them may say. |
| skinkmasterreturns | 02 Dec 2016 5:52 a.m. PST |
We like it,but havent played in awhile. |
| Rudysnelson | 02 Dec 2016 6:26 a.m. PST |
I do not regret playing the game nor do I regret working on the supplements for it. |
| Marshal Mark | 02 Dec 2016 11:47 a.m. PST |
I can see why people might regret buying FOG. I played DBM for years and then FOG. When FOG came out it was good to have a change from DBM, and the fact that skirmishers could actually shoot led me to buying some new armies that would actually work in FOG whereas they didn't in DBM. However, FOG did get a bit tedious after a while – it took longer to play resulting in a lot of timed out games, multi unit combats were over complicated and with its "IGOUGO move everything" system it wasn't as interesting to play as DBM. I don't regret playing FOG but I don't look back on it as fondly as I do my time playing DBM. FOG also didn't work as well as a multi player game. I don't regret buying all the army list books as they are a great resource, and I will keep them even though I can't see myself ever playing FOG again. I do regret buying the V2 rulebook though as I only played once or twice more after buying it. |
| Shardik | 02 Dec 2016 12:16 p.m. PST |
Tedious to play. Especially as Marshal Mark says, grinding your way through multi-unit combats, that made me lose the will to live. I've sold my FoG and supplements books, but I've kept my FoGR books because even though I've only played a couple of games, it seems to be better.
For Ancients, though far from perfect, Sword and Spear is my choice at the moment, followed by DBMM |
| Benvartok | 02 Dec 2016 4:28 p.m. PST |
FOG was good at the time, many a "fun" game given the options back then. Now not so much and I have surplus army lists and V2 of the rule book which I have never read. New DBMM seems to be a lot more fun and working well. No regrets, they were good and moving to the UK 5 years ago they were THE competition set. For a real regret I have to support the Auckland rugby team……meh, 15 years of  poor efforts people! |
| Timotheous | 02 Dec 2016 7:31 p.m. PST |
I really enjoyed the way FoG played for Bronze Age and Medieval games, and agree that multi-unit combats were hard to work out. I would love to try Punic wars if I ever get my Romans all painted and then paint the Carthaginians. But playing Early Visigoths vs Late Romans was soul-crushingly one-sided, and I regret that my regular opponent would only play that period once he learned of Madaxeman's "Dominate Swarm". I hated those games. |
| ochoin | 03 Dec 2016 3:21 a.m. PST |
But playing Early Visigoths vs Late Romans was soul-crushingly one-sided My Gaulish army are yet to defeat my pal's Polybian Romans. I haven't given up hope. Version 2 has helped & I'm working out a new strategy as I write. And anyway…..there's more to miniature wargaming than winning. A lot more. |
| Timotheous | 03 Dec 2016 10:39 a.m. PST |
And anyway…..there's more to miniature war gaming than winning. A lot more. True, very true. But it might have been nice for him to play his Egyptians vs my Hittites more than one time. He used to beat my sons of Heth all the time under DBM, but never again would he play them under FoG. I can't remember, but I might have eked out a win. Besides, I don't mind losing, but not when the result is not even close. |
| ochoin | 03 Dec 2016 3:15 p.m. PST |
……which leads to the question of modifying FoG. I am very aware that rule mods must be carefully thought out. However, I am not a tournament gamer so if I consider there's an historical precedent AND a maintenance of checks & balances (ie I don't want to replace the Polybian prowess with an unbeatable Gallic force)it's worth considering. Thus, with my gaming pals' agreement, I'm considering adding a 4 base Gallic Light Horse BG.The terrain rules, strictly used, tend not to help the Gauls. We've relaxed this already. Ditto NKE which are a bit of an "easy beat" force too. So a unit of Superior Axemen (ie heavy weapons). And so forth. Your thoughts on this? |
| Timotheous | 03 Dec 2016 5:57 p.m. PST |
Hi Ochoin, I like your way of thinking; tinker with the rules to at least make it interesting to both players. I could add some more cavalry in the form of allies, if I could play FoG again. But alas, the fellow I played with moved away, and then I moved away, and no one else here plays FoG. I shall have to wait until I find another opponent, or paint another complementary army for my HYW English, or Hittite Empire forces. Until then, it's DBA 3.0 for me! |
| keyhat | 05 Dec 2016 6:36 a.m. PST |
I certainly don't regret playing FoG at all. After years of DBM, I found it to be refreshingly more detailed and nuanced. The game could become a bit long and the ability to move everything each turn may not have appealed to those who prefer more randomized C&C ( i.e. spending pips), but the combat and maneuver rules were excellent. It strikes me that FoG lost much of it's following, not because of the rules, but because of all the uproar over the publishing of V.2 and the number and cost of all the army list books.
I've moved on to ADLG (a good game in it's own right) because that is what others in the tournament scene are playing, but I still prefer FoG and I suspect
I'm not alone. |
| Saurocet | 05 Dec 2016 7:16 a.m. PST |
Hi keyhat, You're not alone. I prefer FoG. I mostly play historical scenarios and I prefer the details and the nuance. I also like the complexity of dice rolls. Dice rolls in DBx are too easy to calculate odds and I don't like that. The complexity in FoG forces me to forget the math, which is refreshing. From the Mad Axeman website, I understand that some people didn't like the "Dom Swarm" tactic, but since I don't play tournaments and stick to recreating historical battles, I didn't experience that particular problem. |
| Vespasian28 | 05 Dec 2016 2:53 p.m. PST |
Still playing and enjoying both FOGS and it is still the rules of choice at our club for Ancients through to Renaissance. Not so sure about the tinkering going on at the moment for both sets, especially FOGAM which appears to be all about speeding things up for competition players. |
| Scorpio | 07 Dec 2016 7:22 a.m. PST |
isn't 22 (number of votes for Flames of War) more than 19 (votes for Field of Glory)? GW has a total of 41 if you take 40k and Fantasy together! Welcome to TMP Polls! |
| Tarantella | 07 Dec 2016 7:34 a.m. PST |
I do not regret playing the game nor do I regret working on the supplements for it.
and with that the prisoner was taken out, tied to a post and summarily shot. 
|
| 138SquadronRAF | 07 Dec 2016 12:58 p.m. PST |
Nope, the club still plays all three versions, Ancients, Renaissance and Napoleonic. Not a favorite set but not the most loathsome rules the group plays, that would be Koenig Kriege. |
| Ghecko | 07 Dec 2016 1:53 p.m. PST |
FoG: Over our way, everyone ended up playing with armies of "knights, pikes and lights" – my poor old Indians never had a chance. |
| Vespasian28 | 08 Dec 2016 2:19 p.m. PST |
We mostly play historical match ups but my Indians usually get beaten. Not this weekend though in a 14-2 thrashing of Late Achaemenid Persians. Hoorah!! |
| Ghecko | 09 Dec 2016 1:06 p.m. PST |
Yes Vespasian28, the Indians usually suffer under most sets of rules. |
