Home Forums Renaissance Not another set of new rules!

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #102868

    Our first ECW game is ready to go for the 18th of this month. I’m also considering chickening out….not of the game but of the rules. These are the Field of Glory: Renaissance set.

    In preparation, I’ve read the rules carefully.  I’m reasonably proficient with the FoG:Ancients  rules which we’ve long used & there are many similarities. This BTW is not necessarily good because they do diverge & that can be confusing.

    However, I’ve had one game of FoG:R (years ago) & no-one else ever used them. Also, no-one else has a copy. I’ll be the ‘Rules Guru’: joy! And let’s be honest: they’re a dense set, hard to learn.

    So, I’m considering changing horses. Almost accidentally, I found a very popular, FREE set called “Victory Without Quarter” specifically for the ECW. They’re card driven (lots of fun ) and about 8 pages long.

    And there’s a one page QRS sheet as opposed to a packed 4 pages for FoG.

    I could write: yet another set of rules! but I know that mastering them would be easier than mastering FoG:R.  And, I could email everyone a copy.

    What do you think?

    donald

    #102876
    Brendan Morrissey
    Participant

    Well, you know your group better than any of us, so only you can really decide on what you think would be the best rule set for them.  Our club has just started an 8-player/4-a-side ECW campaign using FoG:R (beginning at September 1642 with appropriate starter armies), so any advice I give you is going to be biased in that direction.  To be honest, I didn’t realise you had so little experience with FoG:R – I thought you ‘d had several practice games over the past few years.  If it’s not floating your boat, then certainly don’t stick with it – as you say, if your FoG:AM experience is going to make you the FoG:R rules guru by default, then perhaps go with the simpler rules and see how everyone gets on, then “upgrade” if you and they think it’s worth it.

    B

    #102880
    Ruarigh
    Participant

    If you have to teach them all the rules, I would default to the simpler set just to save on headaches. The alternative of playing FoG-R sounds like a real chore.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/
    https://roderickdale.co.uk/

    #102886

    If it’s not floating your boat, then certainly don’t stick with it – as you say, if your FoG:AM experience is going to make you the FoG:R rules guru by default, then perhaps go with the simpler rules and see how everyone gets on, then “upgrade” if you and they think it’s worth it. B

    I do like the FoG:A rules & I think the :R are probably better.

    I guess I’m the “leader” of our group. I organise most of the games & nearly all of them are at Chez Ochoin’s. To be perfectly honest, I’d prefer *not* to be the instigator but I know I’d get about 2, maximum, games a year if I didn’t take the role.

    This is starting to sound like a whine. My pals are good fellows & obviously enjoy my efforts & do contribute. I took them through ‘The Men Who would Be Kings’ over the past 2 years, culminating in our successful Show game. But FoG are a different package. The game on the 18th if we used them, would be hard work. I think FoG requires a fairly high degree of expertise before it becomes enjoyable. Clearly, I’m flinching. I will consider your excellent advice.

     

    donald

    #102904
    Graham Harrison
    Participant

    How big are your commands? If the group got on with TMWWBK why not try The Pikeman’s Lament? At least it’s simple to pick up, especially if you have played Lion rampant. I’ve played a few big games of both LR and TPL with 3 commands on each side and it’s worked well.

    #102926

    How big are your commands? If the group got on with TMWWBK why not try The Pikeman’s Lament? At least it’s simple to pick up, especially if you have played Lion rampant. I’ve played a few big games of both LR and TPL with 3 commands on each side and it’s worked well.

     

    At the moment, Covenanters have 17 units & English Royalists have 19. I have a Parliamentarian allied force of 6 units finished & waiting & Montrose’s Scots could be any size (one of my pals is doing those).I have a bunch of various units planned but not yet painted.

    The ECW may well be our next Show game, so upwards of a 1000 figures, ultimately.

     

    I had to modify TMWWBK a lot to allow a mega-game.

     

    donald

    #102936
    Shahbahraz
    Participant

    If you are eventually going to end-up with 1000 figures then you need a ruleset that offers simple mechanics but an engaging command system. I have FoG:R but have only done some limited run-throughs, and you are going to have to ask yourself, will my mates actually learn these to the level required? If the answer is no..    write your own, use DBA-RR  or some other simple set

    --An occasional wargames blog: http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.co.uk/ --

    #102953

    I really enjoyed Victory Without Quarter for the two games I ran. I’ve got two old blog posts regarding them here: first game, second game. 

    I’ve still got a players’ cheate sheet that may help, too. It’s a two page synopsis in *.pdf format. Message me if you’d like a copy. Keep in mind that I was running ECW with 54mm figures and players who’d never played the rules or the period–though they were experienced war gamers. I think I had eight or ten players for the big game and by the end everyone was quite comfortable with the rules. And, it was fun, too!

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #102970

    I’ve still got a players’ cheate sheet that may help, too. It’s a two page synopsis in *.pdf format. Message me if you’d like a copy. Keep in mind that I was running ECW with 54mm figures and players who’d never played the rules or the period–though they were experienced war gamers. I think I had eight or ten players for the big game and by the end everyone was quite comfortable with the rules. And, it was fun, too!

    I found a 2 page QRS on the net somewhere….which may well be yours?

    “Fun” has got to count for a lot. I’m still thinking.

    Thanks, donald

    #103017
    Brendan Morrissey
    Participant

    Once you are familiar with them, FoG:R can be fun, but you have to get to that stage first.  In that respect, they are quite like British Grenadier in that they are so much easier to learn if someone familiar with them is running the game (and better still, there is one such person per side).  On the down side, I’ve always felt that FoG:R was primarily intended to be an ECW/TYW set, and everything else “pikey and muskety” was shoehorned in – some of the sub-periods don’t quite fit neatly into the equation, and others suggest that the rule-writers were not terribly well read on that specific subject (don’t get me started on the 1513 Henrician army in France, for example!).

    Brendan

    #103037

    Donald,

    I don’t think I’ve ever posted my VWQ cheate sheete before. But it’s been ten years so…. Anyway, here’s a link to a shared *.pdf document on my Google drive. I’ll probably remove the document in a week or so. So grab it while it’s hot. You may want to double check the distances given on the cheate sheete. I was planning a game using 54mm figures so I’m not sure if the distances are reflective of that or if they conform to the rules as written.

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-5mu31vkR4PexADYjyqIHZyNRAHl7iSg

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #103038

    Downloaded. And thank you very much.

    It is different from the one I got from someone’s Dropbox.

     

    donald

    #103996

    The dreaded ECW game was today. I used the FoG:R rules & ……it went very well. Surprisingly well.

    The four of us kicked off at 10am, broke for a 90 minute lunch (including some nice wine) and fired the last shot at 4pm. The usual de-brief happened over coffee & biscotti afterwards. I’m quite amazed at how well everybody picked them up & how quickly, really, the game went. Indeed, the consensus was if we played it again, we’d knock it over in about 3 hours!

    I’d read the rules from cover to cover twice in the last month so I was able to provide a fairly accurate guide to the rules. The Covenanters put up a good fight but were routed by a superior (& to be honest, better handled) Royalist force. The consensus was FoG provides a challenging game that seems to be period-accurate.

    The next game in the ECW cycle will be in three weeks or so & everyone was keen to play, using FoG.

    Photos were taken, & I’ll post these asap.

     

    donald

    #104166
    Brendan Morrissey
    Participant

    Glad to hear you had a good game with FoG:R – it is a good set of rules (still more so once you become familiar with them) and particularly suits the limited range of troop types you find in ECW battles.  Just had a quick gander at the photos on the other thread and really like your armies – you’d never know they were plastic (that’s a compliment, btw!).

    #104178
    Steve Burt
    Participant

    Fog:R is a good set of rules (better that Fog:A, I think), but these days we’ve switched to ‘For King & Parliament’, the ECW version of ‘To the Strongest’.

    We were struggling to finish a FoG game in 3 hours, whereas FK&P (and TTS) allow a large game to be played to a conclusion in a couple of hours.

    #104218

    @ Steve. Thanks but with the time invested etc I’m stuck with FoG. The interesting point is the enthusiasm from the Newbies for them! And I thought they might hate FoG. They are experienced gamers & see the potential for tactical finesse in these somewhat complex rules. Go figure.

     

    Re; my performance in guiding the rules in the first game, I made a couple of errors. I’ve skimmed the rules since & seen Double & Triple moves need to be Simple Advances only (ie not contractions, 90 degree turns etc). I miscalculated the dice reduction for Disrupted & Fragmented. I forgot about the Break Off rule. Not too shabby.

    But a QUESTION:

    Artillery, whether Short or Long Range is essentially a negative POA & always a dice per gun. So what’s the point in having Short & Long ranges???

    I’m considering whether to make Short Range a Positive POA or leave it Negative but give each gun an extra (ie 2) dice in Short Range.

     

    Comments?

     

    donald

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.