Field of Glory

[Philotomy Jurament]

Played a game of Field of Glory the other night. I'm just learning the system, but I had a blast. Some pics can be seen here. The battle was "pseudo-historical" Late Carthaginians vs. Palmyran/Romans.

There's a good review of the game system, here. If you're interested in ancients miniatures wargaming, you should check it out.

 

[Bluenose]

It's a nice enough system. I've been playing it for a year or so, and I'm looking forward to Renaissance FoG at the end of this month. I think it does 'classical' Mediterranean warfare, the ancient Greeks, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Rome, and their neighoburs/enemies/allies about as well as any game I've seen. And a pretty good job of the post-Roman period up to around 800AD. I'm less happy with it as a historical rule set for earlier warfare, the 'chariot' era, later 'medieval' warfare, and warfare outside the region.

I am amused by the appearance of Palmyrans. I thought I was one of very few people who fielded them. Cataphracts versus (Sassanid) Elephants has been an expensive collision for me in the past.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think it does 'classical' Mediterranean warfare, the ancient Greeks, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Rome, and their neighoburs/enemies/allies about as well as any game I've seen.

This is my main area of interest, a the moment, so I'm glad to hear that. I'm putting together a Late Ptolemaic army (successor state style pike phalanxes, cavalry, skirmishers, romanised infantry, and elephants) and a Late Republican Roman (i.e. post Marian reforms) army, to start with.

I'm less happy with it as a historical rule set for earlier warfare, the 'chariot' era, later 'medieval' warfare, and warfare outside the region.

Interesting to hear that you think it's less suited for late medieval, since Storm of Arrows lists seem pretty popular. What criticisms do have with how it handles that period?

Also, what systems do you prefer for those periods?

(The main reason I ask is that this is my secondary area of interest, as far as armies go.)

I am amused by the appearance of Palmyrans. I thought I was one of very few people who fielded them. Cataphracts versus (Sassanid) Elephants has been an expensive collision for me in the past.

I wasn't familiar with Palmyrans, but received a quick education! I wish I had deployed my (Late Carthaginian) lines differently, but hindsight is 20/20. I guess Late Carthaginians vs. Palmyrans is anachronistic, anyway. Sassanid Persians would probably be a better match-up. Don't they come from the same list (i.e. Legions Triumphant)? Late Carthaginians are from Rise of Rome, so a bit earlier.

 

[Bluenose]

This is my main area of interest, a the moment, so I'm glad to hear that. I'm putting together a Late Ptolemaic army (successor state style pike phalanxes, cavalry, skirmishers, romanised infantry, and elephants) and a Late Republican Roman (i.e. post Marian reforms) army, to start with.

Well, if you'll take a little advice, with Late Republican Romans be Caesar, not Crassus I don't think I've ever seen a late Ptolemaic army - the earlier one with pikes lined up from one table edge to the other, or so it felt like, is another matter.

Interesting to hear that you think it's less suited for late medieval, since Storm of Arrows lists seem pretty popular. What criticisms do have with how it handles that period?

Also, what systems do you prefer for those periods?

(The main reason I ask is that this is my secondary area of interest, as far as armies go.)

What I like in a medieval set is a lot of emphasis on who is in command. FoG lacks personality rules, and that's fine for a lot of periods. I don't think it works quite for medieval armies. The FoG ones are just a touch too reliable for my tastes. To be fair, I don't think you could do a set of rules to cover such a long period and over the whole world, without either abstracting a lot of things or doing a lot of work in 'army books' describing the particular peculiarities of Army-X compared to Army-Y. You can do the latter for some periods, it's one reason I like Flames of War, but that's with twenty or so nationalities over a six year period. Ancients is far too large for that treatment.

Most of my medievals are earlier 11th-12th century armies, assorted El Cid Spanish, de Hauteville south Italian Norman, north African/Spanish/Sicilian Muslims, I use Shattered Lances. It was written specifically for that period, and seems to me to do a really good job of it. The clash between the different military systems involved is perhaps the 'theme' of the rules. It can go into the detail of different ways a formation of horse archers will attack, and have rules for the successive shock effect of staggered charges by bodies of knights.

I wasn't familiar with Palmyrans, but received a quick education! I wish I had deployed my (Late Carthaginian) lines differently, but hindsight is 20/20. I guess Late Carthaginians vs. Palmyrans is anachronistic, anyway. Sassanid Persians would probably be a better match-up. Don't they come from the same list (i.e. Legions Triumphant)? Late Carthaginians are from Rise of Rome, so a bit earlier.

Sassanids and Palmyrans are in Legions Triumphant, yes. I have to admit I wouldn't fancy the Carthaginians chances in that match up, particularly if the terrain was open. The Palmyrans are great at handling armies based around light/medium infantry, around skirmishing cavalry, or indeed most cavalry armies. Armoured shock troops, with something to keep the cataphracts off their flanks, usually leaves a lot of dead Palmyrans. They're also pretty bad in rough terrain, if they can't clear it with archery.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Well, if you'll take a little advice, with Late Republican Romans be Caesar, not Crassus

Hah! Solid advice, indeed!

I don't think I've ever seen a late Ptolemaic army - the earlier one with pikes lined up from one table edge to the other, or so it felt like, is another matter.

Sounds like we might be talking about the same thing. I don't recall an early Ptolemaic (I think the Field of Glory books called the earlier Egyptian armies "dynastic egyptian"). But I don't own all the army list books, so I could be wrong.

In any case, "forest of pikes" is an apt description. Combined with romanised infantry (like legionaries, but average quality and just swordsmen rather than skilled swordsmen), lancers, and elephants, it looks like it could be a tough nut to crack. (I have no real play experience to back up that impression, though.)

If I were facing a later Ptolemaic army, I'd probably try to goad some of those shock troops into charging and get their lines broken up.

You can do the latter for some periods, it's one reason I like Flames of War…

I've been avoiding Flames of War in an effort to protect my bank account. However, it's very popular, around here, and I just watched HBO's Band of Brothers series, which got me thinking…

But maybe I'll dust off ASL for a WWII fix. Cheaper.

Most of my medievals are earlier 11th-12th century armies, assorted El Cid Spanish, de Hauteville south Italian Norman, north African/Spanish/Sicilian Muslims, I use Shattered Lances. It was written specifically for that period, and seems to me to do a really good job of it.

Cool; I'll see if I can track that down and check it out.

I have to admit I wouldn't fancy the Carthaginians chances in that match up, particularly if the terrain was open…Armoured shock troops, with something to keep the cataphracts off their flanks, usually leaves a lot of dead Palmyrans. They're also pretty bad in rough terrain, if they can't clear it with archery.

We fought in agricultural terrain. We didn't finish that battle. According to attrition points, it was a draw at the time we called it, but the Palmyran battlefield position and situation was better. I think a few more turns would have turned the tide against me and my poor Carthaginians.

 

[Bluenose]

Sounds like we might be talking about the same thing. I don't recall an early Ptolemaic (I think the Field of Glory books called the earlier Egyptian armies "dynastic egyptian"). But I don't own all the army list books, so I could be wrong.

In any case, "forest of pikes" is an apt description. Combined with romanised infantry (like legionaries, but average quality and just swordsmen rather than skilled swordsmen), lancers, and elephants, it looks like it could be a tough nut to crack. (I have no real play experience to back up that impression, though.)

If I were facing a later Ptolemaic army, I'd probably try to goad some of those shock troops into charging and get their lines broken up.

It's the same list, just the earlier time period. The romanised infantry are a late development, only available post 120BC (? some time around then), and once they're available there are less pikes allowed. That early list is pretty simple to use, just roll forward with a massive phalanx and either crush everything in front of it or lose. The other troops are just there to guard the flanks. The one you're collecting is a lot more versatile, and more manoeuvrable. And still formidable in a frontal fight. I suspect the reason I've never seen it at competitions is that it doesn't quite have the 'battle-winning' units for a decisive punch. Tough to beat, yes, but I suspect it'd have difficulty winning a decisive victory in a game with a time limit. And outside competitions, locally we're more into the dark age and early medieval period, apart from one or two eccentrics whose chariots gleam in scarlet and gold.