Updates - where we are at

Moderators: terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Ravensworth
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:22 pm

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by Ravensworth »

nikgaukroger wrote:I would expect a PDF of all the changes. New book is not on the cards.
Any chance you would make this available as a softcover print on demand at a higher price for people that cannot get a version 1? Wargame Vault does a nice Job of doing this and Osprey uses them to sell PDF's of certain games already.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by nikgaukroger »

Ravensworth wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:I would expect a PDF of all the changes. New book is not on the cards.
Any chance you would make this available as a softcover print on demand at a higher price for people that cannot get a version 1? Wargame Vault does a nice Job of doing this and Osprey uses them to sell PDF's of certain games already.

That is a question for Slitherine and Osprey and not one I can answer.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
viking123
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by viking123 »

With the danger we may lose Campaign the people most pushing for the changes in the rules and points are not involved in the main playtesting competition.

Doing it at home on your own does not give a true impact of the changes.
urbanbunny1
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:54 am
Location: London

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by urbanbunny1 »

Looks like Briton might be the first proper trial of the v 1.1 rules as the FoGR comp at the Challenge has been canned.
DavidofRowlands
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:18 pm

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by DavidofRowlands »

I recently participated in the Oxford Round and previously several practice games using these proposed amendments so thought I would share my views on the FoGR amendments as played. Firstly many very thanks to the Oxford club for laying on an excellent event.

1. Artillery changes
a. Removal of captured in JAP good and works
b. Moving light guns as part of a division good and works

2. Dragoons
a. Movement as MF when with 6 of enemy makes sense, is good and works.

3. Commanded Shot
a. As a marker seems the way forward and removes the increased army break point by having random 2 element units swanning around the field
b. However, I can’t help feeling a simpler solution would have just been to make the CS and Mounted unit combined like a pike & shot foot unit with bases removed proportionately in the same manner as for a pike & shot unit.
c. It appears the benefit in Impact & Melee previously proposed of an extra dice has been dropped. Not sure about this as if trying to mimic the regimental gun rules the extra dice make having CS more viable.
d. Overall I like the proposal but am not sure it is there yet.

4. Better Armour
a. It may be this requires better wording but this was translated at least 2 different ways in games I have played.
b. As it stands dropping the re-roll of the file with lesser armour is as expected more complicated and more difficult to explain.
c. As an alternative I initially thought add a dice to the unit with better armour but with multiple units fighting and different files have differing armour categories this would not work either.
d. I prefer the POA as it stands in the rules as it is easier to explain and look up if in doubt.

5. Autobreak changes and points changes
a. My understanding, which may well be incorrect, is that these changes are proposed mainly by players on the competition circuit so why do the changes generally make armies larger and make it less likely to get a decisive result in the limited time most competition games are played in.
b. The new autobreak levels mean units, especially average, take longer to breakdown so means the game lasts longer or conversely is less likely to get a decisive result in a limited time game.
c. Average units are now as good as superior (and elite in most cases) but average points have mainly not changed yet superior and elite are cheaper.
d. Well, only for mounted bases, so why have these points changes not been reflected in foot bases?
e. Biggest negative on being issued a document of changes for the competition was that the army list changes did not align with the proposed points changes e.g. superior armoured determined horse with impact pistol and melee pistol were still pointed at 84 points for a 4 base unit.
f. Nothing has been done to correct the imbalance of light lance ineffectiveness for the same cost of heavy lance. Should be 1 point cheaper.
g. Why, oh why has it been proposed to remove the +4 points for Swedish Brigades? They clearly get 4 advantages over other pike & shot bodies in the rules so that justifies clear 4 point extra cost.

6. Other points
a. I see nothing to address the issues of terrain placement that 9 times out of 10 ends up playing on a vast open plain clearly disadvantaging armies light in mounted troops or having better foot troops that the player would (and should) be making the most of e.g. 80 YW Dutch, Early 30YW French, Early 30YW Swedish as obvious examples.
b. I like FoGR. As it stands it is a good set of rules that generally works well and creates a reasonable feel for the period, certainly better than other rules I have tried for this period. As such I don’t see a great need for a lot of tinkering with the rules. Some of the proposed amendments to play make sense and work well, others probably need some more development and play testing. The points and autobreak changes I am much less convinced about.
c. In answer to one of the question on the survey put round at the end of the competition – I will continue to play FoGR but will think twice about playing FoGR using the amendments in full as they stand now.

Cheers
viking123
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by viking123 »

I think you must have been using the old modified army generation spreadsheet as I have just tried it on the one I send out just before the competition and a battle group of 4 superior armoured determined horse with impact pistol and melee pistol comes out at 64 points.

Bob
RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by RonanTheLibrarian »

Yes, that worked fine with my New Model superior armoured DH. (David - I'll email you the one Bob sent me, if you like.)
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"
DavidofRowlands
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:18 pm

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by DavidofRowlands »

Hi, Thanks for the offer but I may not have made myself clear on what I was getting across. The Oxford chaps very kindly issued a paper of the amendments before the competition. What I was griping about was that at the end of that paper were several army list changes in terms of changing the numbers of particular troops allowed in specific armies but the points of those changes were the old points e.g. 84 for 4 bases of Su DH Armd Pi Pi not the new points as earlier in the paper which come out as 68 (Su DH Armd 14 + 1 Impact Pi + 2 Melee Pi = 17 x 4 bases = 68). Apologies for being pedantic but I do a lot of proof reading for work and little inconsistencies like this niggle me. No harm done and it was a great day out. Pity I can't do 2 day weekends otherwise I would be able to try Attack at Devizes out. But the Wessex day in September is booked in the diary and more importantly with the Mrs.

Cheers

David
viking123
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by viking123 »

I promised Paul Kitcher that I would post his comments on the proposed updates on the forum.

"I don't have a problem with a set of amendments that are universally accepted and published where they are easy to get hold of.  Problem here is I don't think these will be universally accepted and I'm honestly concerned that this will mean a series of disjointed competitions (or clubs) where some do and some don't play the amendments.     - Wessex indicates this is very likely to happen .    I do think some of the amendments are OK incidentally but the main risk here is we will end up with a muddle. 

It might be worth explaining what happened (for me) with DBM and what I fear will happen here.   (Noting this is a very personal view)

With DBM we had a competition and non competion group at our club (I happened to fall into the non competition group).   Both had a lot of time and money invested in ancients.  Up to the first 3 or 4 sets of amendment (which I think took us to V3) things went OK.  New sets of (consolidated) rules were available at a reasonbable price and we could simply update.    Somewhere around 3.1 the authors lost interest and it was left to the gamers to decide on amendments.  By gamers read competiton gamers.   I think I handled 3.1 but 3.2 which came along a few months later was not handled well and (it felt) was designed for those who played certain types of competition armies.  Worse it was only published through either BHGS or one of the forums (which I did not follow).   

Result - I found myself thinking I was playing one set of rules and finding amendments (sometimes in-play) that made them quite different - result I lost interest in ancients until FoG appeared.

Now a perspective of how I think this changes things for FOGR - I have used a couple of examples.

At Reading I played Steve Stead (tuareg) and Alistair (Western Sudanese) with my later French two close games one lost one drawn.  The later French only just about competitve against these two armies and one of the things that makes them competitve is useful cheap skirmishers (I.e. dragoons) that under the unamended rules enable you to keep the Tuaregs (in particular) at arms length while you use your artillery.  Under the amendments the dragoons are all but useless against these armies and I  would never take the later French into a competition where any army like tuareg or sudanese could appear.   Worse cavalry are now cheaper so tuaregs and w sudanese will be even more effective - they are already hard enough to beat with a western army.   So it's going to change open competitions significantly.   

I alos seroiusly wonder if Swedes will be the force they were - the 2 stand support units are used to pad the unit count - going for the `shooter' element means you will see armies that are smaller, and therefore easier to break. They also now have rubbish skirmishers - dragoons so  are they worth using any more?    I have some more thoughts and will correspond in due course."  
spedders
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by spedders »

We do need this sorted and finalised as soon as possible. I am happy with everything save the points cost. I would keep the reduction in costs for det horse, cavaliers and gendarmes. I would keep the changes in mtd weapon costs. I would not adjust any other mtd points cost save for a surcharge for camels of at least 1pt per base.
princeyriel
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:14 pm

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by princeyriel »

spedders wrote:We do need this sorted and finalised as soon as possible. I am happy with everything save the points cost. I would keep the reduction in costs for det horse, cavaliers and gendarmes. I would keep the changes in mtd weapon costs. I would not adjust any other mtd points cost save for a surcharge for camels of at least 1pt per base.
Totally agree, and with the points costs. And after playing with these amendments for the first time at Devizes, I think everything is goood apart from the change to armour POA. It seems unnecessarily fiddly and is a different mechanism to anything else in the game. What I like about FOGR is it's simplicity and for me this goes against that. I think it should be left as it is especially if the points for the troops that get to use it most, mainly curassiers, are not going to change.
Lynnette
spedders
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by spedders »

To be fair Lynette I have found them easier each time I play with them
princeyriel
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:14 pm

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by princeyriel »

spedders wrote:To be fair Lynette I have found them easier each time I play with them
Really! That must be your lawyers mind working on a different level to mine :wink:
viking123
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by viking123 »

Why did we spend a lot of time and effort in a number of competitions to find that the points elements of the proposed updates have gone no where.

We are told that we are more than likely going to be using the old points values at the Derby World.

Bob
spedders
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by spedders »

I agree! Essentially reverting to the old points means we have done nothing to deal with the weakness of det horse, so we will go back to no one using them unless they have too!
madaxeman
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3002
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by madaxeman »

Because everything else is pretty much sorted, so in the absence of an "official" view it's easy enough to go with what's been broadly agreed for most things.

Points clearly needs more work however, and the last "official" (i.e. Nik) version has been pretty roundly rejected as being far too lenient to most mounted. So, reverting to the starting point (s) is probably less controversial than me and Kevin just making it up...?

If we hear nothing official for a long time that may change....
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by kevinj »

As Tim mentioned, for Britcon we had to choose between using the previous proposals (to which the general response was that they went too far), using the existing points system or inventing a new one. We felt that we were too close to the event for the last option so decided to go with the original values with a couple of exceptions.

I have compiled a revised points table to address the issues raised and we're now discussing it prior to a more widespread debate.
viking123
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by viking123 »

I do not recall a general response that they when to far. I was under the impression that players where concerned the points for cavalry had gone to far. I stand to be correct by proof of this general response. But in the competitions I have been involved in and club games the majority of points changes have been accepted and considered taking too long to come through.
RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by RonanTheLibrarian »

I would have to add that my understanding was the same as Bob's - that cavalry specifically was now too cheap, but the other points changes had generated no adverse comment.
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"
JGL
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:09 am

Re: Updates - where we are at

Post by JGL »

With DBM we had a competition and non competion group at our club (I happened to fall into the non competition group).   Both had a lot of time and money invested in ancients.  Up to the first 3 or 4 sets of amendment (which I think took us to V3) things went OK.  New sets of (consolidated) rules were available at a reasonbable price and we could simply update.    Somewhere around 3.1 the authors lost interest and it was left to the gamers to decide on amendments.  By gamers read competiton gamers.   I think I handled 3.1 but 3.2 which came along a few months later was not handled well and (it felt) was designed for those who played certain types of competition armies.  Worse it was only published through either BHGS or one of the forums (which I did not follow).   

Result - I found myself thinking I was playing one set of rules and finding amendments (sometimes in-play) that made them quite different - result I lost interest in ancients until FoG appeared.
Not directly to do with FoGR, but these comments on DBM shows how unreliable memory can be! DBM 3.1 was issued by Richard Bodley Scott in January 2005. DBM 3.2 was issued jointly by Richard and me (John Graham-Leigh) in April 2011, after a year's play-testing, and was then available as a free download "amendment sheet" on Richard's web site and mine. In July 2011 the full text of 3.2 was put on Phil Barker's WRG site, with a link from my site. It's still there. So hardly "a few months later", and the complete text was and is readily available as a download from the publisher's site. The 3.2 amendments were proposed by various players, not all "competition types", and voted on by a large number of players.

Back to FoGR - I'm looking forward to the final revised version. With FoGR, unlike DBM, I'm a non-competition player but I'm still keen and have vast armies in both 15mm and 25mm.
Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”