Fields Of Glory

[Brushmaster]

Haven't yet been able to play a game but it looks interesting and a lot simpler than most ancient/historical battle systems I know . Have you tried it yet ? What do you think of it ?

[Lars Porsenna]

Haven't tried it yet but have the rulesbook. The fact that is uses WRG basing standard is a huge plus in my book (since ALL of my 15mm is based to that standard...)

 

Damon.

[Heisler]

We are hoping to get some games in during the next few weeks. The rules do have some Barkerisms in there though but the examples will usually get you through any of your questions. My late Carthage force arrived just before I left for ReaperCon.

[Forlorn Hope]

The fact that is uses WRG basing standard is a huge plus in my book (since ALL of my 15mm is based to that standard...)

Damon.

 

 

Of course I see the logic in this as well, and I will probably get the system at some point and try it (although right now no historicals players in town ). The thing is, I feel like there are plenty of systems that work pretty well for 15mm WRG basing, and I have a backlog of rules that I would like to try/play more in that scale and basing scheme (Might of Arms esp. but also some free online rules, Warmaster ancients with some modifications, Comitatus, Glutter of Ravens, IIRC). What seems to be lacking are rules for 25/28mm minis using the most common basing of that scale (basically 20mm individal, 25mm for lights, to be combined on a base). I was hoping that fields of glory would do this, and I am a little disappointed that it will be yet another game to try in that scale/basing.

 

I think for most people DBx/WRG basing in 28mm just doesn't work - it looks goofy and conflicts with WAB, which seems to be the standard. Crusader released a game that kind of fit this role, but it didn't get much traction and had some funky issues with it.

[Lars Porsenna]

I play WAB too, and ALL my 25mm figures are based to that standard. However, Warrior (IIRC basically an upgrade to WRG 7e) has a "28mm" basing, which uses a 80mm frontage (rather than 60mm). Which translates very well to WAB (heavy infantry on 80mm frontage = 4 figures on 20mm bases, with medium infantry = 3 figures on 25mm bases with a little room to spare). That being said, WAB has basing "reccomendations" and not a standard per se. FREX. ALL heavy infantry gets 20mm bases for me (even though the rules say you can base them on "15mm" bases...or 4 figures on a 60mm base!) and all light infantry gets 25mm bases (even though you can base on 20mm...and some gamers do just that). I think WAB suffers because it does NOT have a standard, but the suggestions it has is flexible enough that you can wiggle it into WRG basing schemes and play the game...

 

Personally, this is a non-issue for me, since I see games played with WAB to be at a different scale than games played with WRG basing. Therefore, I prefer BIG battles using WRG based rules, and smaller battles with WAB, and play big games with 15mm and smaller games with 25mm...

 

Damon.

[Forlorn Hope]

Heya,

 

I did not know that about Warrior - I will look that up. I see what you are saying about scale and battle size, and I agree that the 15mm battles tend to "seem" larger. The problems with WAB, though, really only emerge when I think of it as a small scale game. The clunkyness of heavy infantry moving really only makes sense when I imagine hundreds of men as opposed to the 25 that I actually have on the stand.

 

I also have never met anyone who used anything other than 20mm for the heavies and 25mm for the lights. I know that there isn't a standard per se, but doesn't it all follow the model of WFB? Whenever I meet a fellow WAB player the basing inevitably seems the same to me. I see that 15mm basing would be better for using other wargames rules, but I don't even know how well 15mm bases would keep some of the minis standing up...

[Lars Porsenna]

I should clarify that when playing WAB, I "imagine" the unit to be more like a Cohort or such. For planninig purposes I use a figure scale of approx 1/15 or 1/20. Thus a 3000pt game using Romans would be something equivalent to a mid-sized mixed arms Vexillation, with a 24 man cohort equal to 480 men...

 

As far as the basing issue, are you on any of the WAB forums?

 

Damon.

[Forlorn Hope]

As far as the basing issue, are you on any of the WAB forums?

Damon.

 

No I'm not. I used to be on the WABlist and the WABlight list, and it is the hazy memory of those lists, along with the handful of WAB players I have encountered, that make me say that most people have seemed to use the std. 20mm basing. This very well might not be the case, though, and it sounds like you have more recent info than I do. Are there a lot of people running around using 15mm/20mm for their basing?

 

P.S. I take it you are not from Italy (nor king of any cities?) - where are you from?

[Lars Porsenna]

Are there a lot of people running around using 15mm/20mm for their basing?

 

Not so much 15mm, but 20mm for LI yes. There were a few recent discussions on the illogic of basing LI on 25mm bases (essentially the gist of it is they get ganked enough for the only +1 rank bonus).

 

P.S. I take it you are not from Italy (nor king of any cities?) - where are you from?

 

No, I'm from Pennsylvania. I only WISH I was Etruscan...

 

Damon, probably closer to a Samnite, Italo-greek, or maybe a Lombardic Italo-norman than an Etruscan...

[Forlorn Hope]

Yeah, I could see that for the light infantry, but mainly because it is ever so slightly funky when playing a skirmish game and some of the minis are on the larger base. Doesn't really bother me, but I could see a lot of people making that choice.

[bento]

I'm in a quandry of whether to buy WAB, FOG or something completely different.

 

I recently read that FOG only covers through 1500AD and has no plans to develop lists for armies after that. I want to run Sengoku (1500s Japan) period battles. I was disappointed that WAB has not yet released "Divine Wind," their army list for Japanese armies, and FOG doesn't have plans to cover Japan until 2009. Gunpowder is optional during this period, as it didn't appear widely until after 1560s, so you can still run plenty of foot soldiers & cavalry.

 

If I don't go with samurai, I also like Ottoman/Balkan (which is covered by WAB) or Thirty Years' War.

 

Also, I'm a noob when it comes to historical minis. What's a good book to pick up to understand issues like basing?

 

Thanks!

[Heisler]

Mmmm interesting question. There really isn't "a book" that is going to help you understand that. Basing is an integral part of each of the different rule sets. There has been movement in the last 5-6 years to more standard basing sizes but you would still need to at least peruse that section of the rules you are interested in to see what they are using. Historical rule writers have still not quite figured out that if they use a "standard" basing and aren't forcing the players to rebase their minis to play their rule sets they will sell more.

 

For instance, in 15mm anyway, FOG uses a 40mm frontage and varies the depth of the base from 15mm to 40mm (and larger in some cases) depending on what troop type is being represented. This is pretty close to being the "standard" for 15mm Ancients.

 

I think that you will find that the Japanese are not well represented by any of those rule systems (I don't know about DBA/DBM as that's to much like a chest game for my tastes). I believe there are a number of systems specific to both Japanese, Korean and Chinease battles. You might see what you can find along those lines.

[Doug Sundseth]

I'm in a quandry of whether to buy WAB, FOG or something completely different.

 

I recently read that FOG only covers through 1500AD and has no plans to develop lists for armies after that. I want to run Sengoku (1500s Japan) period battles. I was disappointed that WAB has not yet released "Divine Wind," their army list for Japanese armies, and FOG doesn't have plans to cover Japan until 2009. Gunpowder is optional during this period, as it didn't appear widely until after 1560s, so you can still run plenty of foot soldiers & cavalry.

 

WAB, if my experience was indicative, does army flavor by adding special rules that apply only to a specific army. With that design philosophy, the lack of an army list is a problem, because adding an army requires rules design work.

 

FOG, on the other hand, uses the existing rules and troop definition to describe new armies, so adding new armies is a bit less problematic (as long as you don't want to play the army in tournaments). (I'll note that this is also the path taken by DB*, Warrior, WRG Ancients, Armati, Days of Knights, and others.)

 

IMO, that shouldn't be the direction you approach the problem from, though. The real determiners, to my mind, are:

 

1. What your likely opponents are playing -- Even a sub-optimal game with actual opponents is normally better than playing solitaire.

 

2. What style game you want -- If you have opponents for multiple game systems, would you rather play a skirmish-style game, where the actions of individual figure determine the outcome of the battle, or a unit/mass-style game, where the battle is between masses of troops and the individual figures are more abstract representations of large numbers of soldiers? Both styles of games are popular, but not so much with the same players.

 

If I don't go with samurai, I also like Ottoman/Balkan (which is covered by WAB) or Thirty Years' War.

 

You might want to look specifically at games aimed at renaissance warfare rather than ancient and medieval warfare. DBR has been fairly popular, though I don't much care for some parts of it. For a survey of the available games covering that period, you might want to take a look at this page.

 

Also, I'm a noob when it comes to historical minis. What's a good book to pick up to understand issues like basing?

 

Thanks!

 

Basing is generally rules-specific. Nearly all rules sets will have a section describing the basing preferred or required by that set. Many recent sets of ancient and medieval rules have chosen to go with a basing standard the same as, or derived from, that used in WRG Ancients, 7th ed.: 40mm wide bases for 15mm figures and 60mm wide bases for 25mm figures, with base depth and number of figures per base depending on troop type.

 

Edit: After reading Heisler's reply, I'll say that many game systems do Japanese mass battles adequately. You can run Sekigahara with DBM or DBR and get quite reasonable results. But you'll want a different rules set if you want to do a castle raid scenario than if you want to do a mass field battle.

 

DBA, FWIW, is a much more abstract view into ancients. It's primary advantages are very fast play (usually under an hour from start of setup to end of teardown), broad coverage, and good balance. Insights into history are not its strong point.

[Forlorn Hope]

I think that you will find that the Japanese are not well represented by any of those rule systems (I don't know about DBA/DBM as that's to much like a chest game for my tastes). I believe there are a number of systems specific to both Japanese, Korean and Chinease battles. You might see what you can find along those lines.

 

I agree, but I do think that, with some knowledge of, or research into, the period, you can probably find an existing army list that will allow you to make just about any army that you would like. E.G. right off the top of my head my guess is that you would be able to field a pike, cavalry and some infantry army from WAB Chivalry book that could work for your period, and in that same book you could probably do the same with spearmen instead of pike (don't really know your period in Japan, so take your pick).

 

I would, as Doug mentioned, see what games people around you are interested in. I would add, though, that I would see what scale people are interested in as well. I have almost never used my 15mm late Wars of the Roses armies, even though I have enough for 4-5 DBA armies. My 28mm stuff, however, has been used lots. This is not because people around me have had armies to go against me, but instead that they are used to the larger scale (and to Warhammer), and so when I have put up both sides for a WAB game, or when I have broken them into skirmishing units for Pig Wars or historical Mordheim or something the other players were much more into it. Their initial and enduring distaste for 3-4 minis on a stand to equal a unit really made a difference, and meant that the 15mm fellers never saw action.

[bento]

Thanks for everyone's insights into my questions. Right now I only know one other mini wargamer and he plays mostly Warhammer and WH40k. I borrowed his WAB book to get a feel of the game, and he's also taken me through a game of Warhammer to go over the rules. I noticed that the dice can triumph superior tactics and its too random for my tastes.

 

I checked with him tonight and he's more than willing to go up against me if I build my samurai army with one of the Warhammer "Nippon" lists that are out on the 'net. I found three last night. These have some fantasy elements built in, like sohei, mages and oni. Hello Reaper Dark Heaven figures! I want mass battles more than skirmishes.

 

As far as contacts with other groups, I'm on the Lone Star Historical minis group listserv and one of these days I'll make it to a local event. I saw that in July there's a game day hosted by the DFW Irregulars over in Plano. I may stop over there to check it out and see what people are playing.

 

About FoG - I like the fact its relatively new, so if I got into this now I have a better advantage with the rules than if I chose DBx and played against people who've been at it for years. The book is also really inexpensive at Amazon, so even if I never end up using it to play, I won't be out a lot of money.

 

I prefer 25/28mm, as that's what I paint for my D&D games. The 25mm figures at Old Glory look servicable and have enough variety. I have two sets of OG samurai and they paint up really well. I also saw that another company (Warlord?)is making 25mm Roman and Celt plastic figures for FoG that are selling $30 for 50. That's a price point attractive enough for me to give it a try.