I know change is intimidating for some of you
but it really is a good game.
Full Version: Field of Glory > DBx
I urge DBx players to have a look at Field of Glory, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I know change is intimidating for some of you but it really is a good game.
I know change is intimidating for some of you
but it really is a good game.
QUOTE(Ghost_9 @ Mar 16 2008, 01:24 PM) 
I urge DBx players to have a look at Field of Glory, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I know change is intimidating for some of you
but it really is a good game.The models sure look nice but I already play WHFB.
I did think about using the new plastic Romans to make another WHFB Army though
What are the rules like?
Cheers,
Allan
QUOTE(Fluffy05 @ Apr 6 2008, 02:26 PM)
The models sure look nice but I already play WHFB.
I did think about using the new plastic Romans to make another WHFB Army though
What are the rules like?
Cheers,
Allan
Strictly speaking the plastic model range is made by a different company to Slitherine/Osprey. They have the rights to use the logo but (unlike GW) you can use any manufacturer's figures at comps, regardless of logo. Having a game rules company that doesn't make figures and a wide selection of manufacturers is good for customers, although a little confusing for kids coming from Warhammer ~ but I guess that's where the endorsement/alliance with Wargames Factory comes in, making it easier for those used to the Games Workshop way.
Apparently Wargames Factory's decision to go with 28mm was to try and make sales to Warhammer Ancients players as well as FoGers/DBMers. Everyone's excited of course but forums seem to indicate a split of 70% in favour of 15mm and 30% in favour of 28mm. I have no doubt that the plastics from Wargames Factory will get people playing in 28mm, but the winning strategy for the long term would be plastic 15mm, imho.
My understanding is that 15mm is the scale of choice in our country for historical gamers, although 28mm (and to a lesser extent 10mm) has it's devoted followers. Personally I stick with 15mm because it's the scale in use at my club, and it's cheap, and easy to paint, and easy to transport... which is nice after years of expensive and chunky Warhammer
Rules are very good. Apparently it drops a lot of the ideas presented in DBM, goes back to WRG and then heads off on its own evolutionary branch. I didn't play WRG so can't confirm. I can say that it is fun, makes sense and is quick to learn.
Is there any reviews of FoG out there?
I just don't want to fork out $$ for something I may not play.
Cheers,
Allan
I just don't want to fork out $$ for something I may not play.
Cheers,
Allan
By chance this was just posted to the Oz_FoG list a few hours ago, it's a comparison of DBx to FoG which might not help you but should at least give you a second opinion of sorts I don't share his praise of the index, which I find poorly designed, but at least it does have one!
My advice is to get along to a club and have a game - that way you're not handing over dollars for something you might not like (or worse, something you can't get your mates to play). That's assuming you have clubs of historical gamers in your city/region of course!
Edit: Author of review is Gary Plachetta; credit where credit is due!
I don't share his praise of the index, which I find poorly designed, but at least it does have one! QUOTE
I am a long time fan of dbx and have recently taken up FoG (as another game rather than as a complete alternative – I will still play dbmm – hopefully a version 1.1 anyway with some of the problems addressed that many perceive exist in the current version).
I am enjoying FoG more each time I play.
On presentation FoG wins by miles – not just because of the colour and pictures – the rules are very well laid out with an index (gasp!) and a glossary (ooo-ahhh!) and diagrams near the relevant section of the rules – and the rule book does not fall apart after a couple of reads.
On complexity – in my opinion FoG is a simpler game (although this may be just that dbmm is harder to read and find things) – but like dbmm the subtleties of the troop interactions make it very tactical. I always think of dbmm as more “chess like” and very precise so micro management of moves and angles is important whereas FoG has very nicely eliminated all that fiddle – don’t get me wrong though – I like a more precise game where units cannot perform pirouettes and teleports – FoG has a nice balance of simple movement within realistic constraints.
Units vs elements – dbmm feels “bigger” (to me anyway) in that you get 50-60 elements to shuffle around while FoG has just 10-12 units (refered to as battle groups or bgs). Having played a half dozen games now we are seeing much more manoeuvre so do not be put off if your first couple of games are a shuffle forward and resolve combats – manoeuvre will come as you get into turns, expansions and contractions. Units are more difficult to move freely whereas an elements can zip about quite freely – I am starting to like units more and feel that they may in fact be more “historical” - based on nothing more than perception as what do I know about an ancient battle!
Command and control – I like the pip system in dbx – FoG uses a different approach where commanders aid rapid deployment of and motivate troops (enhanced performance in combat and manoeuvre, recover morale (referred to as cohesion)). Basically all bgs can make at least one move in a turn (so no pip drought) but irregulars (referred to as undrilled) become harder to move freely once they get up close to the enemy troops.
Morale – dbx uses overlaps, recoils and flank contact to reflect troop morale and element losses to calculate the army break point. FoG uses a stepped morale table (steady, then disrupted, then fragmented, then broken) and morale tests (referred to as cohesion tests) to reflect unit/troop morale, and unit losses to reflect the army break point. You either like morale tests or not – you can get a ripple effect in FoG in that one unit breaking can ripple through other nearby units. In dbx the loss of an element opens up your line and gives your opponent overlaps – same difference really.
Figures/basing – your dbx bases directly translate to FoG although you may need a few extra.
Look and feel – in my opinion both games give a good look and feel – emphasising lines, support, command and favourable troop match ups.
Other stuff – I much prefer the terrain system in FoG and troop deployment also. These are a critical part of the tactics of the game – you need to try to pick and place terrain that your troops will operate well in – and then watch your opponent move or even remove it – great! Alternate deployment of battle groups is much better than the current “one side lays down everything” approach of dbmm (in my view anyway) – simple, tactical and eliminates the need to record deployment and all the ”fudge” that that can inspire.
Overall – I think FoG and dbx are both excellent games. Each has some very clever mechanisms – you use basically the same troops – so you cannot lose. I currently favour FoG due to the problems I believe exist in dbmm and I think FoG will give you more fun.
I am enjoying FoG more each time I play.
On presentation FoG wins by miles – not just because of the colour and pictures – the rules are very well laid out with an index (gasp!) and a glossary (ooo-ahhh!) and diagrams near the relevant section of the rules – and the rule book does not fall apart after a couple of reads.
On complexity – in my opinion FoG is a simpler game (although this may be just that dbmm is harder to read and find things) – but like dbmm the subtleties of the troop interactions make it very tactical. I always think of dbmm as more “chess like” and very precise so micro management of moves and angles is important whereas FoG has very nicely eliminated all that fiddle – don’t get me wrong though – I like a more precise game where units cannot perform pirouettes and teleports – FoG has a nice balance of simple movement within realistic constraints.
Units vs elements – dbmm feels “bigger” (to me anyway) in that you get 50-60 elements to shuffle around while FoG has just 10-12 units (refered to as battle groups or bgs). Having played a half dozen games now we are seeing much more manoeuvre so do not be put off if your first couple of games are a shuffle forward and resolve combats – manoeuvre will come as you get into turns, expansions and contractions. Units are more difficult to move freely whereas an elements can zip about quite freely – I am starting to like units more and feel that they may in fact be more “historical” - based on nothing more than perception as what do I know about an ancient battle!
Command and control – I like the pip system in dbx – FoG uses a different approach where commanders aid rapid deployment of and motivate troops (enhanced performance in combat and manoeuvre, recover morale (referred to as cohesion)). Basically all bgs can make at least one move in a turn (so no pip drought) but irregulars (referred to as undrilled) become harder to move freely once they get up close to the enemy troops.
Morale – dbx uses overlaps, recoils and flank contact to reflect troop morale and element losses to calculate the army break point. FoG uses a stepped morale table (steady, then disrupted, then fragmented, then broken) and morale tests (referred to as cohesion tests) to reflect unit/troop morale, and unit losses to reflect the army break point. You either like morale tests or not – you can get a ripple effect in FoG in that one unit breaking can ripple through other nearby units. In dbx the loss of an element opens up your line and gives your opponent overlaps – same difference really.
Figures/basing – your dbx bases directly translate to FoG although you may need a few extra.
Look and feel – in my opinion both games give a good look and feel – emphasising lines, support, command and favourable troop match ups.
Other stuff – I much prefer the terrain system in FoG and troop deployment also. These are a critical part of the tactics of the game – you need to try to pick and place terrain that your troops will operate well in – and then watch your opponent move or even remove it – great! Alternate deployment of battle groups is much better than the current “one side lays down everything” approach of dbmm (in my view anyway) – simple, tactical and eliminates the need to record deployment and all the ”fudge” that that can inspire.
Overall – I think FoG and dbx are both excellent games. Each has some very clever mechanisms – you use basically the same troops – so you cannot lose. I currently favour FoG due to the problems I believe exist in dbmm and I think FoG will give you more fun.
My advice is to get along to a club and have a game - that way you're not handing over dollars for something you might not like (or worse, something you can't get your mates to play). That's assuming you have clubs of historical gamers in your city/region of course!
Edit: Author of review is Gary Plachetta; credit where credit is due!
Thanks for the heads up 
It helps a bit.
I have a mate you used to play alot of historial games. I'll hit him up when he is back in Oz.
Happy Gaming,
Allan
It helps a bit.
I have a mate you used to play alot of historial games. I'll hit him up when he is back in Oz.
Happy Gaming,
Allan
I currently play 40K and WFB, but am looking at alternatives. My main concerns with the GW games are the cost of the model and new army books every few months with a resultant power creep.
As a teenager (about 25 years ago) we used to play using the Wargames Research Group rules for ancient wargaming. I like the idea where the rules/army lists are designed to reflect historical fact rather than to promote figure sales.
Am I correct in thinking that the WRG rules morphed into DBx?
What is the relative popularity of DBx and Fields of Glory at the moment?
In an ideal world I would prefer a rule set where I (and others in my gaming group) can start by using existing WFB armies or models.
Thanks
Mark C
As a teenager (about 25 years ago) we used to play using the Wargames Research Group rules for ancient wargaming. I like the idea where the rules/army lists are designed to reflect historical fact rather than to promote figure sales.
Am I correct in thinking that the WRG rules morphed into DBx?
What is the relative popularity of DBx and Fields of Glory at the moment?
In an ideal world I would prefer a rule set where I (and others in my gaming group) can start by using existing WFB armies or models.
Thanks
Mark C
WRG Ancients evolved in to DBx around ed 7.0 but also became Warrior when another group took them over.
DBx hit a brick wall when DBMM came out about the same time as FOG as it wasn't popular.
DBA has a strong following, for larger games FOG and DBx is about a 50/50 split, and the basing in 15 mm lets you play either.
I think I've got that right
DBx hit a brick wall when DBMM came out about the same time as FOG as it wasn't popular.
DBA has a strong following, for larger games FOG and DBx is about a 50/50 split, and the basing in 15 mm lets you play either.
I think I've got that right
Yep the basing for FOG and DBx are the same.
FOG is written by the same guys that DBM, WRG etc. it is basically the 3rd incarnation. It moves pretty well, and nice to play.
I like FOG over DBM, but will always play DBA.
cheers
FOG is written by the same guys that DBM, WRG etc. it is basically the 3rd incarnation. It moves pretty well, and nice to play.
I like FOG over DBM, but will always play DBA.
cheers
QUOTE(thefloppy1 @ Oct 13 2009, 03:35 PM)
Yep the basing for FOG and DBx are the same.
The lack of understanding by the authors of 28mm really shows when they recommend 4 heavy infantry figures for a 60mm wide base. It's definitely a 15mm game.
QUOTE(thefloppy1 @ Oct 13 2009, 03:35 PM)
FOG is written by the same guys that DBM, WRG etc.
There's one very important omission, making the game infinitely more playable and enjoyable.
Cheers
CW
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.