The Loose Association of Wargamers

This game was to be the first outing for my Pyrrhic Greek army against my veteran Carthaginians. Two of my pals took arms against me for the game.

The Table:


The game was organised to have the two sides trying to control 2 out of 4 marked objectives. My opponents didn't know mine & vice versa:


Deployment followed the Field of Glory rules:

There were 16 units a side.

Both sides had supply camps:



Capturing these added Victory Points.

The Commanders Carthaginian & Greek:




The battle was a dramatic clash between various troop types:








The mighty Greek phalanx was formidable:




A highlight was the battle between skirmish units:


Anti-elephant artillery (was fairly disappointing):


In the end, after 11 game turns, the Carthaginians took their objectives & broke the phalanx:


....next time,,,,,
donald

What a great-looking game, Donald - well done. Must be almost two years now since I've played FoG:R.....

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:32 pm Must be almost two years now since I've played FoG:R.....

Thanks. FoG:A here, of course.

I gave 'Mortem et Gloriam' a very hard look as a replacement but couldn't get any momentum from my pals.
In this game the "hidden objectives" wheeze & Event Cards given life to what can be a little dull set of rules.

donald

Yes (the Greek/Carthaginian thing was a bit of a giveaway!). I think I've only played FoG:A/M once and was left a little confused by some bizarre differences between it and FoG:R (eg Ancients, however "unruly", can step backwards facing the enemy and perform "passage of lines", but trained Renaissance troops can't do either apparently). That said, I think the FoG stable has a lot going for it and have been tempted to stick with them, for all their faults and eccentricities.

That looks very good. Liking the objective idea, might have to steal that.

Tim Hall wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:04 pm That looks very good. Liking the objective idea, might have to steal that.

Tim, I can't remember who I borrowed the idea from, but it was someone smarter than me (that leaves nearly everyone).

The mechanism goes thus:

3-5 marked objectives. These need to be more or less positioned on a central line. Can be BUAs, fords, prominent hills, sacred spots, crossroads etc.

From an identical set of numbers, one side draws 3 & puts them in an envelope. Ditto, the other side.

We've used this idea several times. Sometimes the objectives are pretty obvious, sometimes colossal bluffs have misled opponents: no matter, it gives something to fight over.

Probably the best aspect is you play to time. "I have to go at 6" doesn't mean an unfinished game. You don't *need* to crush your opponent but at 6 you can see who has control of his hidden objectives & a winner.

donald

Thanks Donald.

Tim Hall wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:48 pm Thanks Donald.

No problem.

In the game above, as it turned out, we both drew the same objectives which meant we were both pretty sure of what our opponents wanted. And the fighting was concentrated around them. Still was a good game.

In a previous game, as it turned out, both sides ended up with different objectives. This meant you had to take a contested one in order to win. Still was a good game.

donald

So at some point before/during the game, you have to reveal to the other side what your objectives are?

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:29 am So at some point before/during the game, you have to reveal to the other side what your objectives are?

I'm explaining a simple mechanism really badly.

When the game is called - either due to time lapsing or army rout - you reveal your hidden objectives. As I was trying to indicate, mostly you can guess your opponents before then.

donald