Some additional FOG:N observations.

Hi Guys
'Gman' recently asked some questions on a club forum about Field of Glory: Napoleonic (FoG:N) and what I thought of the system.
I thought I might share my response, (and that of my friend Arnaud 'LeGrognard' )


From "Gman"
Hi Scott,

I've heard it said that FoGN is a bit slow to get a game through, how do you find it compares ?

Here in Brisneyland we're looking at what rules set to focus on for Nappies and some of the popular choices are Napoleon at War, Waterloo (GW offshoot ?) and FoG:N .

Do you have any experience with the first two ?

Hoping that FoG:N is easier to pick up on and less brain hurty than FoG Ancients which is pretty much abandoned locally, although I'm not meaning to make pre-judgements at all (in case anyone else wonders !).

Genuinely trying to get an idea of pros and cons.

My reply:

Hi Gman
SLOW? No, defiantly not.
Napoleon At War and Waterloo.? I've Played Nap At War. It's a Division level game. At that level I prefer LASALLE.
Waterloo. Not played though I do have a copy. For what it's worth it looks to much like Warhammer for my liking.
FoG:N is 'wordy' but it rewards the effort put in with an excellent 'Napoleonic' gaming experience IMHO. That said, it's nowhere near as difficult to grasp as some systems I've dealt with. There is an EXCELLENT PowerPoint presentation that you can download that walks you through an entire turn. Highly recommended. I'll try and find it, but I think it's somewhere on the Slitherine FoG-N Forum.



From "LeGrognard"

Hi GMan, 
I posted this in another thread about "FoG:N First Impressions", but have pasted the salient points here: 
Having not played the rules in some months, it was very easy to pick up again, especially with a very knowledgeable referee to assist players (Crabby also has a lot more experience, so really I was the only neophyte).

Rules flow very well, and once you get the sequence down in your head, play moves along very swiftly.

By the end we had a pretty convincing conclusion which I've never seen with any other Corps level system. The only thing that really slowed us down was the occasional query regarding some of the nuances. Since it was a friendly game/learning experience we would all grab our rule book and carefully go through the applicable section so everyone understood. Helped with game play lots, but did slow us down a bit.

Biggest issue I have is with me...not the rules. At Corps level your considerations are far different than at battalion level (duh!) which is where most of us learned Napoleonic wargaming. Once you accept that, then everything about formations, fire, command and combat really does make sense.

The more I play, the more I appreciate these rules. They actually make sense, flow very well and are a joy to play. You can get a very convincing decision in a decent period of gaming once you know what you are doing.

I am certainly enthusiastic about them. Between these rules and "Lasalle" by Sam Mustafa I think I've got my Napoleonic gaming covered. Basing is the same for both systems as well as "BP" and "RtoE" so I can dabble there as well should I choose.

I pretty much agree with everything Arnaud has stated here. For the life of me I can't understand why these rules have not taken off with more people. I understand that they have not taken off in Sydney, but I believe them to be fairly popular here in Melbourne. It's a CORP level game. Once you grasp that it's all good. The rules play quickly.
I've some AARs on my blog:

Battle of Sacille 1809

http://trailape.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/moab-12-sacile-1809-fogn-style.html

Battle of Mockern 1813

http://trailape.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/mockern-october-1813-fog-n-aar.html

and of course our recent battle of Lambsnag on Bunn: 

http://trailape.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/the-battle-of-lambsnag-on-bunn-fog-n-aar.html

You can find other FoG:N stuff here:
http://trailape.blogspot.com.au/search/label/FOG-N

BELOW: Saxon Infanrty, 1812. "We LOVE FoG:N! (These comments are not paid for by Slitherine)".

I have played 3 VERY large battles with them thus far and got results in relatively short amounts of time (3.5 - 4.5 hours).
The game flows nicely and feels like a Corps level action.
As Arnaud said, between these and 'Lasalle' I've got my Nap gaming covered. I use SHARP PRACTICE for Skirmish and FPGA for ARMY level.

Another question was posed by 'Nick':

My only reservation now is that you and I share a love of AB figures but we seem very different in our approach to rules. You like LaSalle where I think they're a very disappointing set. I need a Command & Control system and a well developed Morale system and some differences between troops when firing (I dont believe Prussian Landwehr ever shot as well as the Old Guard) in my rules for any level of command.
Do these elements exist in FOGN in your opinion?

The C&C system in FoG-N is IMHO excellent. It's nothing like LASALLE in that regard,
(and nor should they). I'm a Divisional Commander in LASALLE. Here in FoG:N I'm commanding a Corp as a minimum.
Shooting? The big difference is between reformed (think French, later war Prussians, etc) and Un-Reformed (think 1806 Prussians). Troop TRAINING has some bearing on shooting. For example:
VETERANS and CONSCRIPTS have re-rolls. Vets re-roll 1s (a Miss) and Conscripts re-roll 6s (a Hit).
Also 'OLD GUARD' will endure hits better than Landwehr.
Remember we have entire REGIMENTS (Brigades) shooting at each other here, not a Battalion of Guard Grenadiers exchanging shots with Landwehr. Things like attachments of Skirmishers and Artillery will impact on your ability to shoot.

In short, I believe so.
FoG:N is NOT FoG:A.

Cheers
Comments Welcomed.