Help support TMP


"Modifying FoG" Topic


Field of Glory

11 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.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Field of Glory Rules Board


Areas of Interest

Ancients
Medieval

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article


Featured Workbench Article

The Alpha 54mm Painting Contest

Five finalists are in the painting rounds of the Alpha 54mm Painting Contest (sponsored by Alpha Miniatures). Who will prove themselves masters of painting 54mm scale Ancients?


Featured Profile Article

Remembering Marx WOW Figures

If you were a kid in the 1960s who loved history and toy soldiers, you probably had a WOW figure!


802 hits since 30 Dec 2016
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP03 Dec 2016 4:16 p.m. PST

From this discussion:
TMP link

Besides, I don't mind losing, but not when the result is not even close.


……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) from the Middle Kingdom list may be added.

And so forth. Your thoughts on this? Apologies for the double post. I'm very interested in people's opinions & I did not want this question to get buried in a moribund discussion.

Marshal Mark04 Dec 2016 12:58 p.m. PST

I am very aware that rule mods must be carefully thought out. …….
I'm considering adding a 4 base Gallic Light Horse BG.

That's not a rules modification, it's an army list one, so doesn't need to be carefully though out in the same sort of way. If you think it's reasonable from a historic perspective to include it then go for it.
On the other hand, you shouldn't be altering army lists just because one side needs a boost of some sort to get a balanced game. You should only be altering them because you think it is justified historically. If one side needs a boost (because the match-up favours the other side) and your opponent agrees, then why not just give them more points ?

Timotheous04 Dec 2016 3:51 p.m. PST

I was thinking about the Roman vs Barbarian matchup while trying to get to sleep last night. The barbarians ought to have an advantage in the impact phase, to offset their disadvantages in the melee phase: protected vs armor, and swordsman vs skilled swordsman (--/++)

As it was, my Visigoth's sole advantage (impact foot) was nullified by the Romans also being impact foot. Making it worse for me was that I could only typically field 8-10 units, while the Romans had 16 (at 800 points). So my army was easier to break.

At least in DBx games there is some drama and tension as war bands charge in, with some chance to sweep the legionnaires away, if they get lucky. I wish I had a chance to try it out again by removing impact foot from the Romans.

Henry Martini04 Dec 2016 4:49 p.m. PST

Yes, that was my big bugbear with FoG when it first appeared, and probably one of the reasons I never took it up. It's such an obvious gameplay issue you do wonder how it got through all that play testing.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP05 Dec 2016 12:44 a.m. PST

then why not just give them more points ?

I don't think this is a solution.
The army lists for Gauls & NKE, at least, restrict the number of good troops you can have. And more second rate troops often just means a traffic jam: you are usually better off with smaller armies of good troops.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP05 Dec 2016 12:48 a.m. PST

protected vs armor, and swordsman vs skilled swordsman (--/++)

V2 of FoG only allows the better armour + if no other POAs apply. That is, in melee, it tends to be Gauls-/+Romans.
Now this is still not ideal but I've found I now win *some* melees.

The trick is to add other factors: terrain, charging downhill, a flank attack etc. All this is easier said than done against wily opponents.

Dexter Ward05 Dec 2016 7:11 a.m. PST

Why 'ought' the Barbarians to have an advantage in the impact phase?
I realise that's 'wargame wisdom' and lots of wargames do it that way, but what historical evidence actually supports it?
The Gaul/German fights for which we have good evidence seem to have been pretty prolonged affairs.
I have a feeling the 'hard charging barbarian' is a myth invented by 19th century historians.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP05 Dec 2016 12:36 p.m. PST

@ Dexter

I think the "furious charge" thing is in several ancient authors

eg "The Germans in tight, ordered ranks, made a furious charge upon…." Caesar's Commentaries.

I guess it could be a "barbarian stereotype" of Classical authors but if you reject them as evidence, what have you got left?

Dexter Ward06 Dec 2016 3:03 a.m. PST

If you look in those same commentaries, you will find lots of instances of Caesar's men making furious charges, often without orders.
So it's not a barbarian stereotype; it's what heavy infantry do in the period. All heavy infantry. Hoplites were also noted for the speed of their charge on occasion (e.g at Marathon) and even Phalangites were capable of charging at speed when required.
So I'm not rejecting any evidence; I'm suggesting that we take into account all the evidence – not just the bits that fit our stereotypes.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP06 Dec 2016 5:50 p.m. PST

Dexter: I understand your point but I feel you're special pleading. We all have our own prejudices: mine is the Gauls tended to charge furiously.


Tacitus is another who talks about the Britons' furious charge (soon turning to despondency if it fails). If he & Caesar & virtually every Classical writer on Gallic warfare comments on such, it seems there must be something to it. Stereotypes usually contain a kernel of truth & as I said earlier, if we don't follow the Roman stereotypes, who do we follow? Yours?

I think it fair enough then if Ancients' rules acknowledge the Celtic warriors' strategy seems to have been mainly to charge towards the enemy and to overpower them by sheer force. YMMV, of course.

Elaborate strategies and clever tactics were apparently not for the Celts. This may be due to a peculiarity in the Celtic mentality, which honoured individual skill in battle more than the disciplined and concerted actions of many warriors of a combat team. Thus, FoG gives them Impact bonuses in the Impact Phase.

when required.


Exactly. It wasn't their inevitable tactic. I think we both know that wargames' rules must fit things into discreet boxes even if it's not strictly, 100% accurate. It's a case of what we can live with. I would suggest if this aspect of FoG (& several other rule sets) doesn't sit well with you, look further or simply modify the rules to fit your prejudices.

Thanks, I've enjoyed the talk.

MichaelCollinsHimself07 Dec 2016 1:07 a.m. PST

I think that some Celts did employ stratagies…

In 58 BC at Bibracte, Divico of the Helvetii lured Caesar`s troops off his hill and retiring to another hill, they turned to fight again as a force held in reserve, attacked them in the left rear flank, with Caesar probably positioned on the right, this was the best place to do this I believe.
The generalship and the grand tactics seem quite sound to me, it`s just that the troop qualities were unbalanced.

Caesar blames his own troops for their conduct at the battle of Gergovia in 52 BC. But in this, he is merely attempting to divert his readers from the fact that he had made a basic mistake in attacking a fortified position, leaving his left flank vulnerable.
Vercingetorix is tactically astute enough to recognise Caesar`s error and attacks – this time though Caesar loses!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.