Historical Scenarios
Moderators: terrys, philqw78, rbodleyscott, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators
Crikey! Now I wish I'd thought about it some more Nice write up too BTW mate. I'm starting up some Carthaginians so this is all good stuff from my point of view!Luddite wrote:As for common format...sounds good. I used Millsy's format above.
I just based by outline on all the scenario info I've written and read from other games and sets of rules over time. Hopefully I covered pretty much everything although I'm not suggesting in any way it should be a definitive layout. I haven't seen much in response to my question regarding what I've missed though.
Mods, what do we have to do to get a scenarios section of the forum moving? I'm happy to help with it if needed. Suggest we start with a sticky with the preferred outline / format for a scenario (once it is agreed). Perhaps the writers can comment on the format to keep us in line with the rules and supplements? A list of existing scenarios might also help to prevent double entry unless someone wanted to specifically post an alternate verison for some reason - maybe a smaller size game, different optional rules, etc.
Last edited by Millsy on Wed May 28, 2008 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Millsy, I liked your outline. I have some suggestions below.
Overview:
- Scenario name i.e.) Battle of Marathon, Greece, 490BC, Historical / ahistorical, identify opponents and the lists they use**
- A least a brief summary of the background, battle, important tactical events, and broader significance (as Luddite has done). If interwoven with scenario designers' notes, the battle account might go towards the end after the scenario is fully described.
- Points totals or ranges, any complexity warnings (e.g., player experienced with missile cavalry should handle the right flank etc., central infantry recommended for new players). Set-up and playing time results if tested or played.
** here would be the army list names, Companion book names and list number or page, otherwise a link to a player-developed list or a note that it's included later in the scenario. In some cases there may be scenario specific options allowed in the order of battle for players to choose before deployment.
Briefings:
- Victory conditions or metrics
- Motivation / objectives / player-specific briefings here or separately
Forces: (put this here since it is long and the items above can be fairly brief)
- Detailed orbats with points calculations and including order of march for deployment purposes.
- Reinforcements
Scenario Details:
- Map/Terrain/Weather and any related special rules/restrictions and scale related notes (I like to see armies and map before scenario details since it gives context, though others may differ)
- Deployment requirements/restrictions; whether some standard deployment rules do or don't apply
- First mover, any turn limit, any other general in-game restrictions
- Special Events and triggers
- Other Special Rules
Designer's notes/comments (I love designer's notes)
References:
- Further reading, web sites, etc
We'll probably see test/battle reports, comments, critiques, alternative scenario ideas all in one scenario thread, but it can get congested and hard to follow, so it might be useful to start or request different fresh threads for specific topics - such as "Kadesh Scenario Army Lists " where the players have to generate their own lists, or "Kadesh Scenario AARs" etc.
Overview:
- Scenario name i.e.) Battle of Marathon, Greece, 490BC, Historical / ahistorical, identify opponents and the lists they use**
- A least a brief summary of the background, battle, important tactical events, and broader significance (as Luddite has done). If interwoven with scenario designers' notes, the battle account might go towards the end after the scenario is fully described.
- Points totals or ranges, any complexity warnings (e.g., player experienced with missile cavalry should handle the right flank etc., central infantry recommended for new players). Set-up and playing time results if tested or played.
** here would be the army list names, Companion book names and list number or page, otherwise a link to a player-developed list or a note that it's included later in the scenario. In some cases there may be scenario specific options allowed in the order of battle for players to choose before deployment.
Briefings:
- Victory conditions or metrics
- Motivation / objectives / player-specific briefings here or separately
Forces: (put this here since it is long and the items above can be fairly brief)
- Detailed orbats with points calculations and including order of march for deployment purposes.
- Reinforcements
Scenario Details:
- Map/Terrain/Weather and any related special rules/restrictions and scale related notes (I like to see armies and map before scenario details since it gives context, though others may differ)
- Deployment requirements/restrictions; whether some standard deployment rules do or don't apply
- First mover, any turn limit, any other general in-game restrictions
- Special Events and triggers
- Other Special Rules
Designer's notes/comments (I love designer's notes)
References:
- Further reading, web sites, etc
We'll probably see test/battle reports, comments, critiques, alternative scenario ideas all in one scenario thread, but it can get congested and hard to follow, so it might be useful to start or request different fresh threads for specific topics - such as "Kadesh Scenario Army Lists " where the players have to generate their own lists, or "Kadesh Scenario AARs" etc.
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:31 am
Suggested format going off of our posts:
Title and date of battle
Brief (fictional or Historical) overview of the events leading up to the battle
Scenario: Historical or Fictional
Complexity
Size of game to be played (in other words, is the scenario a large or small number of points)
Suggested # of players (new idea as far as the format goes)
Supplements needed to play the scenario
Army lists, including (if neccessary) order of battle as well as total points of each army
Special rules (includes deployment rules, special events, triggers, etc.)
Terrain
Objectives/victory conditions
Turn limit
Optional author notes on why he created special rules, or did things a certain way etc.
Optional modifications to the scenario such as how to make the scenario more follow the historical battle or how to give the players more leeway in how they want to execute the battle instead of following the historical path, or how to make the game shorter/longer, how to incorporate the scenario into a campaign, etc.
References/Further reading
Title and date of battle
Brief (fictional or Historical) overview of the events leading up to the battle
Scenario: Historical or Fictional
Complexity
Size of game to be played (in other words, is the scenario a large or small number of points)
Suggested # of players (new idea as far as the format goes)
Supplements needed to play the scenario
Army lists, including (if neccessary) order of battle as well as total points of each army
Special rules (includes deployment rules, special events, triggers, etc.)
Terrain
Objectives/victory conditions
Turn limit
Optional author notes on why he created special rules, or did things a certain way etc.
Optional modifications to the scenario such as how to make the scenario more follow the historical battle or how to give the players more leeway in how they want to execute the battle instead of following the historical path, or how to make the game shorter/longer, how to incorporate the scenario into a campaign, etc.
References/Further reading
Thanks Luddite. Great Work. I am just finishing off a few units for my Carthaginian army. I already have a Roman one so this will be nice match up.
I was hoping there would be a bit of interest in scenarios and it seems there is judging by everyone's responses. Hopefully the knowledgable and experienced gamers will be able to come up with some other scenarios. Points games are good, but a scenario proposes a lot of challenges not available in a points game.
I was hoping there would be a bit of interest in scenarios and it seems there is judging by everyone's responses. Hopefully the knowledgable and experienced gamers will be able to come up with some other scenarios. Points games are good, but a scenario proposes a lot of challenges not available in a points game.
I see above that I'm not the only GBoH player that has adapted some of the scenario's to miniature's (DBM) and have found them to be quite good.
Haven't done so with FoG yet but it should work fine. I really like the historical aspect and recreating Battle's. Chalon's or Battle of the Catalonian Field's, was one that can and doe's play out either way, where as the Battle of Hasting's unless you make the Fyrd's impetuous is nearly impossable to win for the Norman's!! But most thing's can be worked out and be very enjoyable.
Haven't done so with FoG yet but it should work fine. I really like the historical aspect and recreating Battle's. Chalon's or Battle of the Catalonian Field's, was one that can and doe's play out either way, where as the Battle of Hasting's unless you make the Fyrd's impetuous is nearly impossable to win for the Norman's!! But most thing's can be worked out and be very enjoyable.
It would be brilliant to play these historical battles. it would give one the feel of an actual ancient battle. One could see how much luck contributed to the final outcome. knowing what had been the errors made by the commanders one can experiment and see what possable outcomes could have been. I think some excellent choices of battles would be :
Cannae ( already mentioned )
Watling Street
Battle of Thermopylae
Pharsalus
These to name but a few that come striaght to mind. Admittedly Ive just noticed that these all appear to be abttles that went one way when it should have gone the other. Cannae, Pharsalus, Watling Street, smaller forces that should have lost becoming the victor and the side that lost suffering annihilation when it should have been victorious. As for Thermopylae, had the Persians not found the mountain path could the Greeks hold long enough? Just some ideas. Cheers
Cannae ( already mentioned )
Watling Street
Battle of Thermopylae
Pharsalus
These to name but a few that come striaght to mind. Admittedly Ive just noticed that these all appear to be abttles that went one way when it should have gone the other. Cannae, Pharsalus, Watling Street, smaller forces that should have lost becoming the victor and the side that lost suffering annihilation when it should have been victorious. As for Thermopylae, had the Persians not found the mountain path could the Greeks hold long enough? Just some ideas. Cheers
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:40 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Don't know about beautiful, but you can make an adequate one with MS Paint without too much trouble.bahdahbum wrote:Can someone explain how to create such a beautifull map . it would help to post scenarios
Jeff "superfletch" Fletcher
Cover: Hercimur the Mediocre (cause superfletch is usually taken.)
Cover: Hercimur the Mediocre (cause superfletch is usually taken.)
Are the Romans getting too few points, or is it hard to be as capable a general as Hannibal?
In the Cannae historical scenario, I don't understand why the Romans only get 1060 points [for 86,000 troops] and the Carthaginians get about the same at 970 for 41,000. The Romans have 106 bases [+camp], and the Carthaginians have 89 bases [+camp].
If a FoG base is about 250 combatants, the Romans have 26,000 troops and the Carthaginians have 21,500.
Seems like the Romans should have about twice [200+] as many bases as they are given, or some weird army list math is happening.
Are the Romans being given a bad deal?
Or is it hard for a "FoG general" to be as capable as Hannibal and defeat an opposing force twice the size of his?
Carthage
List used: Later Carthaginian (Rise of Rome p23) Points total: 970
Initiative: +4
The Carthaginian army composed of roughly 27,000 heavy infantry, 6,000 light infantry, and 8,000 cavalry.
Rome
List used: Mid Republican Roman (Rise of Rome p9)
Points total: 1060
Initiative: +2
The combined forces of the two consuls totalled 75,000 infantry, 2,400 Roman cavalry and 4,000 allied horse (involved in the actual battle) and, in the two fortified camps, 2,600 heavily-armed men, 7,400 lightly-armed men (a total of 10,000), so that the total strength the Romans brought to the field amounted to approximately 86,400 men.
In the Cannae historical scenario, I don't understand why the Romans only get 1060 points [for 86,000 troops] and the Carthaginians get about the same at 970 for 41,000. The Romans have 106 bases [+camp], and the Carthaginians have 89 bases [+camp].
If a FoG base is about 250 combatants, the Romans have 26,000 troops and the Carthaginians have 21,500.
Seems like the Romans should have about twice [200+] as many bases as they are given, or some weird army list math is happening.
Are the Romans being given a bad deal?
Or is it hard for a "FoG general" to be as capable as Hannibal and defeat an opposing force twice the size of his?
Carthage
List used: Later Carthaginian (Rise of Rome p23) Points total: 970
Initiative: +4
The Carthaginian army composed of roughly 27,000 heavy infantry, 6,000 light infantry, and 8,000 cavalry.
Rome
List used: Mid Republican Roman (Rise of Rome p9)
Points total: 1060
Initiative: +2
The combined forces of the two consuls totalled 75,000 infantry, 2,400 Roman cavalry and 4,000 allied horse (involved in the actual battle) and, in the two fortified camps, 2,600 heavily-armed men, 7,400 lightly-armed men (a total of 10,000), so that the total strength the Romans brought to the field amounted to approximately 86,400 men.
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:31 am
I can't speak for the author of the scenario but I think he probably just wanted to make a scenario roughly even on points and men so both sides would have an equal chance of winning. Basically I think the answer is yes, it's hard to be as capable of a general as Hannibal. After all, thousands of years later and we still talk about his feats as a general.
Are the Romans getting all the bases that they deserve?
Seems like the Romans should have almost twice as many bases as they are given in order for the true relative sizes of the armies to be represented.
Carthaginians:
970 points for 41,000 troops
86 bases plus a fortified camp and 3 Commanders
About 476 troops per base.
Romans:
1060 points for 81,400 troops
104 bases plus a fortified camp [with 10,000 other troops in a two-part camp] and 2 Commanders
About 782 troops per base.
In the FoG rule book, a base is said to have circa 250 troops [+/-].
If that is true, then these historical bases are about 2 to 3 times that dense.
So perhaps more bases are needed to represent the battle.
An "average" Roman base with 782 troops should have more combat capability than an "average" Carthaginian base with 476 troops.
Or perhaps an average Roman base should ould be broken into two bases.
Seems like the Romans should have almost twice as many bases as they are given in order for the true relative sizes of the armies to be represented.
Carthaginians:
970 points for 41,000 troops
86 bases plus a fortified camp and 3 Commanders
About 476 troops per base.
Romans:
1060 points for 81,400 troops
104 bases plus a fortified camp [with 10,000 other troops in a two-part camp] and 2 Commanders
About 782 troops per base.
In the FoG rule book, a base is said to have circa 250 troops [+/-].
If that is true, then these historical bases are about 2 to 3 times that dense.
So perhaps more bases are needed to represent the battle.
An "average" Roman base with 782 troops should have more combat capability than an "average" Carthaginian base with 476 troops.
Or perhaps an average Roman base should ould be broken into two bases.
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: Lost Angeles
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: Lost Angeles