Rhuvein wrote:
Have you heard or seen Fields of Battle?
Yes, I read through the thread on it, here. I'm definitely interested, just overloaded with miniatures systems, at the moment. The price is definitely right! (Especially compared to Field of Glory -- man, you can drop some cash on that one, what with the Osprey rule book and army list books.)
I'm hoping you'll post some more details on the system, itself, and maybe some comparisons to other miniatures systems.
Quote:
Anywho, I would love to hear your take on those systems that you mention above.
Field of Glory
I'm mostly reading, at the moment, so keep that in mind. I've been playing the computer version of Field of Glory, which is similar, but not exactly the same as the full tabletop rules. I'm looking forward to my first real tabletop game of Field of Glory this Thursday. I'll try to take some pics and such. I've been posting about Field of Glory in this thread. Matthew also posted a review. And Grendelwulf has a whole series of blog posts on Field of Glory, including a review and articles translating the Greyhawk orders of battle that appeared in Dragon into FoG terms. (Those were originally in Swords & Spells terminology.)
In a nutshell, though, Field of Glory puts a strong emphasis on maneuver and cohesion (i.e. morale/command). You don't typically win by pure attrition, but by breaking the enemy's will to fight and routing them. It seems to have a larger scale than some of the other ancients minis rules that have been popular recently (e.g. De Bellis Antiquitatis and that family), and is a little more detailed and crunchy. You need more minis than with DBA. Obviously, all that mean it plays slower, too. While you could use FoG as part of your D&D campaign, I don't think that's its best role. I think most RPG campaign battles would tend to be smaller than the battles that FoG is most suited for, and so far there are no fantasy rules for FoG (although there is apparently work going on to fill that void). It seems like a damn good miniatures wargame, though.
Like most systems, FoG can handle multiple scales, but its sweet spot is 200-300 men represented per base. A base is typically multiple miniature figures (e.g. light foot is 2 figures per base, heavy foot is 4 figures per base). In 15mm scale, bases are 40mm wide. In 25/28mm scale, bases are 60mm wide. If you use figures smaller than 15mm (e.g. 6mm), the rules suggest basing them as if they were 15mm (that is, you'd use 40mm wide bases with more figures per base than you would for 15mm figures).
Bases are collected into battle groups which move and fight together, and can shift formation and such. Battle groups can also form battle lines, of course. An army typically consists of 8-15 battle groups with 2-12 bases, each. Commanders are based separately and have liberal movement rules, compared to regular units. They can be attached and detached to individual battle groups and can be used in the front line (in which case they increase the quality of the troops) or in their support/command-and-control role (in which case they help morale and cohesion).
Swords & Spells
I started a Swords & Spells thread, here.
In the past, I've always glossed over S&S as a miniatures game because its lack of combat dice rolling always turned me off. However, I've been giving it a second look because of my experience with FoG and because the problems of scale in Chainmail have started bothering me, the more that I think about them. Gary was well-aware of the scale problems in Chainmail: his whole introduction to S&S is directed at that.
I've been developing a new appreciation of Swords & Spells. I see what Gary was doing with it, and I think it has a lot going for it. Like FoG, it puts a great deal of importance on maneuver and morale, since combat is mostly handled with calculations and averages. Its combat tables are designed so that you can use either OD&D little brown book style hit dice and damage (i.e. all d6) or Greyhawk-style variable hit dice and damage (i.e., like AD&D or C&C). And its designed to "mix scales:" you can consistently handle a high level 1:1 scale figure fighting against 1:10 scale units without screwing up the math or handwaving it. Lastly, of course, it's designed to handle D&D fantasy elements, making it ideal for use with a D&D campaign.
Swords & Spells uses a 1:10 scale, but unlike FoG, the figure is the basic unit. (In FoG, the base is the basic unit, and the number of figures on that base isn't critical, usually only indicating whether its light/medium/heavy, etc.) Nevertheless, S&S figures are organized into rectangular "stands" that are similar to FoG's bases. S&S base sizes, and thus stand sizes, depend on the size and armament of the troop type. S&S is even crunchier and more detailed than FoG, in this respect.
Actually, thinking about it, S&S is definitely crunchier in many ways. For example, the combat tables include optional use of weapon vs. AC (all of it is pre-calculated, so it's not really any harder than using the basic table without weapon vs. AC). Despite its emphasis on maneuver and morale, it also has pretty granular tracking of attrition. The only place it's not as detailed is in rules governing movement and formations. It covers that, but FoG covers it in more detail and with more comprehensive rules.
Swords & Spells has a lot going for it and is on my short list for a D&D campaign mass combat system (as opposed to a wargame to just play on its own). I'm planning on playtesting it to see if it is too crunchy or not.
Hordes of the Things
This is a De Bellis Antiquitatis variant that is currently available for free. You'll also want to download pg. 23, which is missing from the main PDF.
DBA, and thus HOTT, is a "fast play" miniatures system. It is less crunchy and detailed than FoG or S&S. You can play with relatively few figures, and the rules seem pretty simple and easy to learn. However, it still has traditional miniature wargame features, so it doens't feel like a skirmish game (i.e. D&D Miniatures and the like). For example, you base your minis, much like FoG, et cetera. (In fact, the base widths are the same, although depth can vary -- but it's possible to use DBA armies with FoG, and probably vice versa.)
Out of the three I'm posting about, I'm least familiar with HOTT. I plan on running some of the same battles that I test with S&S with HOTT, to see how they compare. I'm expecting HOTT to be a smoother-playing system, but not as well integrated with D&D's magic and fantasy elements. So there'd be more hand-waving if using HOTT with a RPG campaign.
From what I read of Fields of Battle, it sounds like it is more like HOTT than like FoG (i.e. simpler, more fast-play, et cetera).
Your pics show a lot of individual figures. Does Fields of Battle have basing requirements at given scales? What is its "default scale" or sweet spot? How does it handle missiles (both ranges and rof) when changing scales? Is movement done per figure, or by group or formation, or both? How does it handle mixing the 1:1 scale (e.g. a single 10th level fighter) with unit scales?
Battlesystem and The Games of War
I haven't delved deeply enough into either of these to offer much comment (especially on Battlesystem). I've basically skimmed them. Games of War is pretty impressive, though. It's a whole collection of rules systems for various periods, and the author obviously has a lot of experience (including gaming with Gary and the other guys from up there). I really like the "do it yourself" tinkering vibe I get from the book. I imagine that aspect would appeal to a lot of C&C fans, too.
(I'm also keeping an eye on War & Battle, being developed by Matthew. He's aiming at a mass combat system that will work for larger and smaller scales and that will make sense with AD&D combat assumptions.)
Edits to add links and such
_________________
http://www.philotomy.com
Lost City Campaign Log