This is something I should have loved - definitely amazing idea for a solitaire game and components are great. Such high praise for it so grabbed it when I got back into gaming (also 2nd edition). Here we are today - still sits on the shelf. Read rules, forums, watched tutorials, set it up and gave it a really good effort. Playthroughs I’ve seen say it all: confused, miserable, frustrated expressions and dialogue; honestly don’t think anyone having fun here. Spending 8 months clarifying and figure out a poorly implemented game with fans online = off to the sale pile. Based on your other reviews and fantastic game recommendations, not surprised by these final thoughts at all Nathan.
Hey - nice review.. :) I agree with (most!) of it :D The bit about not being able to stack firepower like having a CRT, and the fact even though you heap firepower onto a target but don't necessarily get the results you want/expect is actually pretty accurate to real life though :) I'm one of the developers of Edition 3 Fields of Fire (i.e. the rules rewrite you mention about 20 minutes in).. I'd love to have a chat with you about how it's going :) PS - have you seen the Long Tan mod I put on BGG - Aussies in Vietnam! What's not to like ;)
Good overview. Yup, I've always said that the game (esp 1st edition) was presented in such a way as to be more like a leadership simulation for young officers. The biggest hurdle to me, and the thing I think they should start with - is the 'life a unit' - how a GO unit breaks down, because the game really starts when that starts happening. The other big thing I always try to remember- Concentrated Fire and Grenade attacks STACK. And if I remember offhand there are something like 13-14 CF cards in the deck, and 10-11 Grenade? Pretty good odds, so if you have the points, even a FT or A team can do a lot of damage. And pinned units can still help get that extra -1 crossfire. Will definitely go back and catch all of your Play vids!
It's very difficult to deal with the terrain abstractions. You're fighting your battle over a set of playing cards and the artificiality of this is obvious. Doesn't matter if you have sufficient information to play on them, hopping from card to card, they still are basically bubble positions in ranks and rows and that is no way to simulate a tactical situation. What should be done, in addition to getting the rulebook reorganized and improved, is provide a number of clear hex maps on which you can place terrain tiles, either hexagons or cutouts. By creating an actual representation of the historical battleground you will see what the real commanders saw and relate it to what actually happened (or could have happened). For example, you still may take your objective and be subject to a counterattack but check first to see that there is in fact a viable covered or concealed approach path for the enemy in the designated area. If not, then you get the chance to open fire on them before they get to close quarters and attempt to overwhelm you. No magical appearances adjacent to your troops, unless they are completely exhausted and don't even post sentries.
The FOF2 Marines version actually has 'constructed' maps of the cards for many of the scenarios - like a part of Hue is generated as it is in RL by specific cards. FWIW, Ben said he wanted to use cards to make the players not think about lateral movement, which hexes tend to do. He points out that a Company commander is not allowed to move laterally - you have to try to maintain contact with the one or two other companies on your flanks and move forward as much as possible.
Oh my. When I got this game I started a thread on BGG of “Worst Rules Ever?” We spent a week basically trying to figure everything, and I mean everything out. This was first edition. I tried to get involved with two different rules rewrites, both of which ignored every single recommendation I had. I got the update pack, went to play, and immediately ran into Mines, which weren’t effectively covered in the rules. Done. It’s out of my collection now. It’s a damn shame, because the game is very cool and unique. Unfortunately, the designer is very thin skinned and spent most of the time during complaints in Iraq, and the developer was clueless. I wanted, wanted, wanted to like this game, but I am too damned old to spend six hours figuring out a game that should take me an hour, and then spend another six hours trying to find things in the rules. All of that said, the game does a better job of showing how chaotic the battlefield situation is at the squad level. Like physics, the smaller things get, the crazier they get. I can deal with things not really working out (SNAFU rolls in BCS, for example), and the designer did say that this game was inspired from his job as a lieutenant running back and forth from one piece of cover to another trying to get someone to follow an order. God’s Eye it is not, nor should it be. If you haven’t tried Up Front, and I’m not going to say the rules are less opaque (although not as bad with the errata in-line), but it gives a very similar experience. It does work with solo play, although you do have some more info than you normally would. I just don’t look at drawn cards until there’s a need and that seems to do the trick. I applaud you for taking this on.
Yeah I bought first edition back around 2009, and after a week or so I gave up and sold it. This time, I managed to get through a few missions and was playing 90%+ correctly, but even then, I just didn't enjoy it.
The game is a grain of sand hidden on the beach. The rulebook is the worst i have had to wade through in 50 years of gaming. The game is the best game i have played, wrongly and with just making my own interpretations to the rules. The other volume with Hue in it. Hue for me is totally unplayable.
It’s frustrating too that the designer’s position seems to be that players are missing the point in wanting clear, comprehensive, and well organized rules.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it is important to be aware of the potential drawbacks of the system. I positively hate those games where one can play by the book, develops superb tactics and, in the end, it mostly depends on chance. Superior training and tactics will put the odds on your side. The outcome should not be totally unrelated to what you do. Any way to reduce the luck factor to more realistic proportions?
Criticisms about volume of fire seem interesting to me as it evokes a sort of Napoleanic sentiment about volume of fire. Modern infantry combat really is a case of more is not more when it comes to small arms. Its why fire support is so key. The main goal of modern infantry combat is still to suppress, flank, and through closer combat destroy or force to withdraw an enemy, that is if you're not able to destroy them outright with larger support fires. So maybe its just that most wargames really represent a totally different mentality about volume of fire than one created by a military officer. Its not how much, its when and where, for small arms anyway. Its really quite hard to destroy units in real life if they're remotely well trained and reasonably close to parity, unless you're dropping lots of ordnance on their heads. Its why despite being horrifically equipped and trained the Russians are being blasted mostly by NATO supplied support weapons. The idea that more is more died in the trenches of WW1. That was also when technology really showed up to illustrate how its the big support fires that will stack well but the infantry need to make use of maneuver, suppression, and close combat to destroy what was once a Napoleanic stand off. If 12 squads really were superior to 1 or 2 they wouldn't have shrunk the number of units in a battallion and reduced the total number of soldiers per length of frontage. And of course 10 squads are more effective because 10 squads would be from multiple platoons who can stack concentrate fire commands, have organic weapons to use like rifle grenades and bazookas which do stack as well, and of course the crossfire effect. That reflects the way that small arms will stack. But 10 squads can't really ever find the room to shoot, and if you tried you shouldn't be because nobody ever would. They'd just use the HMG instead, arty, and one squad to spot. I think this point in the review may have illustrated where gaming has diverged from the realities of actual combat.
Thanks for the honest review. Referring to your chaos vs. control point tilting towards the former. Could it be that you are actually not employing the best tactics? It takes many hours and much experimentation or reading up to understand the tools at your disposal. Not sure how many hours you have logged. Indeed the rules are still a mess out of the box (but a new version or training system should be coming out of GMT soon), but the game system is so robust, that you can rule on corner cases on the spot like you think the rules should work, and that would work find, given the equalizing randomness in the game.
Yep, I was certainly still on the learning curve, and there was still much I could have learned. But, even at this stage, to give some examples. First, you can't get a better VOF than -4. There's nothing you can do to improve that. So if I have -4 VOF in an area 3 turns in a row, and am not doing any damage, that reflects supremacy of chaos over control. There's literally nothing more I can do tactically, to 'do better'. Likewise, even with hundreds of hours of experience, and employing the best tactics, there's nothing I could do to prevent a late-scenario counter attack to deny my victory. It's a random event, and it completely destroys all that careful planning.
@@WiseGuyHistory yeah that sounds like a 'bad beat' for sure. That's prob the other thing I wish the game emphasized as it teaches- it's not just one mission, but a campaign. You can replay a mission gone bad, and based on how you did be getting good XP even though you didn't win. Level up those troops and get them the next time! And to be fair, you're fighting those damn Veteran paratroopers through much of that first campaign. It's prob why after over 70 days of fighting the 9th still wasn't much further south then St Lo. :)
Based on your overview and the comments I am going to skip this game. I like tactical wargames but this one is obviously flawed and there are better ones out there. Thanks for sharing though, appreciated! Take care Nathan :-)
This is something I should have loved - definitely amazing idea for a solitaire game and components are great. Such high praise for it so grabbed it when I got back into gaming (also 2nd edition). Here we are today - still sits on the shelf. Read rules, forums, watched tutorials, set it up and gave it a really good effort. Playthroughs I’ve seen say it all: confused, miserable, frustrated expressions and dialogue; honestly don’t think anyone having fun here. Spending 8 months clarifying and figure out a poorly implemented game with fans online = off to the sale pile. Based on your other reviews and fantastic game recommendations, not surprised by these final thoughts at all Nathan.
Here's hoping the upcoming Deluxe Edition streamlines the learning curve from a cliff to a gentle slope :)
Hey - nice review.. :) I agree with (most!) of it :D The bit about not being able to stack firepower like having a CRT, and the fact even though you heap firepower onto a target but don't necessarily get the results you want/expect is actually pretty accurate to real life though :)
I'm one of the developers of Edition 3 Fields of Fire (i.e. the rules rewrite you mention about 20 minutes in).. I'd love to have a chat with you about how it's going :)
PS - have you seen the Long Tan mod I put on BGG - Aussies in Vietnam! What's not to like ;)
Good overview. Yup, I've always said that the game (esp 1st edition) was presented in such a way as to be more like a leadership simulation for young officers. The biggest hurdle to me, and the thing I think they should start with - is the 'life a unit' - how a GO unit breaks down, because the game really starts when that starts happening. The other big thing I always try to remember- Concentrated Fire and Grenade attacks STACK. And if I remember offhand there are something like 13-14 CF cards in the deck, and 10-11 Grenade? Pretty good odds, so if you have the points, even a FT or A team can do a lot of damage. And pinned units can still help get that extra -1 crossfire. Will definitely go back and catch all of your Play vids!
It's very difficult to deal with the terrain abstractions. You're fighting your battle over a set of playing cards and the artificiality of this is obvious. Doesn't matter if you have sufficient information to play on them, hopping from card to card, they still are basically bubble positions in ranks and rows and that is no way to simulate a tactical situation. What should be done, in addition to getting the rulebook reorganized and improved, is provide a number of clear hex maps on which you can place terrain tiles, either hexagons or cutouts.
By creating an actual representation of the historical battleground you will see what the real commanders saw and relate it to what actually happened (or could have happened). For example, you still may take your objective and be subject to a counterattack but check first to see that there is in fact a viable covered or concealed approach path for the enemy in the designated area. If not, then you get the chance to open fire on them before they get to close quarters and attempt to overwhelm you. No magical appearances adjacent to your troops, unless they are completely exhausted and don't even post sentries.
Yeah I was thinking much the same thing! Great ideas!
The FOF2 Marines version actually has 'constructed' maps of the cards for many of the scenarios - like a part of Hue is generated as it is in RL by specific cards. FWIW, Ben said he wanted to use cards to make the players not think about lateral movement, which hexes tend to do. He points out that a Company commander is not allowed to move laterally - you have to try to maintain contact with the one or two other companies on your flanks and move forward as much as possible.
As a Marine, I assure you a card is no less arbitrary than a hex for delineating areas of terrain.
It’s for a very special type of person. I couldn’t suffer through this. Life’s too short
Oh my. When I got this game I started a thread on BGG of “Worst Rules Ever?” We spent a week basically trying to figure everything, and I mean everything out. This was first edition. I tried to get involved with two different rules rewrites, both of which ignored every single recommendation I had. I got the update pack, went to play, and immediately ran into Mines, which weren’t effectively covered in the rules. Done. It’s out of my collection now.
It’s a damn shame, because the game is very cool and unique. Unfortunately, the designer is very thin skinned and spent most of the time during complaints in Iraq, and the developer was clueless. I wanted, wanted, wanted to like this game, but I am too damned old to spend six hours figuring out a game that should take me an hour, and then spend another six hours trying to find things in the rules.
All of that said, the game does a better job of showing how chaotic the battlefield situation is at the squad level. Like physics, the smaller things get, the crazier they get. I can deal with things not really working out (SNAFU rolls in BCS, for example), and the designer did say that this game was inspired from his job as a lieutenant running back and forth from one piece of cover to another trying to get someone to follow an order. God’s Eye it is not, nor should it be.
If you haven’t tried Up Front, and I’m not going to say the rules are less opaque (although not as bad with the errata in-line), but it gives a very similar experience. It does work with solo play, although you do have some more info than you normally would. I just don’t look at drawn cards until there’s a need and that seems to do the trick.
I applaud you for taking this on.
Yeah I bought first edition back around 2009, and after a week or so I gave up and sold it. This time, I managed to get through a few missions and was playing 90%+ correctly, but even then, I just didn't enjoy it.
Excellent Summary thnx !
Every FoF player has a nightmare counterattack story….I think it’s regarded as a rite of passage, welcome!
The game is a grain of sand hidden on the beach. The rulebook is the worst i have had to wade through in 50 years of gaming. The game is the best game i have played, wrongly and with just making my own interpretations to the rules. The other volume with Hue in it. Hue for me is totally unplayable.
It’s frustrating too that the designer’s position seems to be that players are missing the point in wanting clear, comprehensive, and well organized rules.
@@starvrosleem
Ahh the rule books the one component that can make a hard game easy
a easy game hard
or a hard game unplayable 😉
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it is important to be aware of the potential drawbacks of the system.
I positively hate those games where one can play by the book, develops superb tactics and, in the end, it mostly depends on chance. Superior training and tactics will put the odds on your side. The outcome should not be totally unrelated to what you do. Any way to reduce the luck factor to more realistic proportions?
Criticisms about volume of fire seem interesting to me as it evokes a sort of Napoleanic sentiment about volume of fire. Modern infantry combat really is a case of more is not more when it comes to small arms. Its why fire support is so key.
The main goal of modern infantry combat is still to suppress, flank, and through closer combat destroy or force to withdraw an enemy, that is if you're not able to destroy them outright with larger support fires.
So maybe its just that most wargames really represent a totally different mentality about volume of fire than one created by a military officer. Its not how much, its when and where, for small arms anyway. Its really quite hard to destroy units in real life if they're remotely well trained and reasonably close to parity, unless you're dropping lots of ordnance on their heads. Its why despite being horrifically equipped and trained the Russians are being blasted mostly by NATO supplied support weapons.
The idea that more is more died in the trenches of WW1. That was also when technology really showed up to illustrate how its the big support fires that will stack well but the infantry need to make use of maneuver, suppression, and close combat to destroy what was once a Napoleanic stand off. If 12 squads really were superior to 1 or 2 they wouldn't have shrunk the number of units in a battallion and reduced the total number of soldiers per length of frontage. And of course 10 squads are more effective because 10 squads would be from multiple platoons who can stack concentrate fire commands, have organic weapons to use like rifle grenades and bazookas which do stack as well, and of course the crossfire effect. That reflects the way that small arms will stack. But 10 squads can't really ever find the room to shoot, and if you tried you shouldn't be because nobody ever would. They'd just use the HMG instead, arty, and one squad to spot.
I think this point in the review may have illustrated where gaming has diverged from the realities of actual combat.
Nicely done. This game is not for me. But again a great video for you as always sir
Thanks again!
Thanks for the honest review.
Referring to your chaos vs. control point tilting towards the former. Could it be that you are actually not employing the best tactics? It takes many hours and much experimentation or reading up to understand the tools at your disposal. Not sure how many hours you have logged.
Indeed the rules are still a mess out of the box (but a new version or training system should be coming out of GMT soon), but the game system is so robust, that you can rule on corner cases on the spot like you think the rules should work, and that would work find, given the equalizing randomness in the game.
Yep, I was certainly still on the learning curve, and there was still much I could have learned. But, even at this stage, to give some examples. First, you can't get a better VOF than -4. There's nothing you can do to improve that. So if I have -4 VOF in an area 3 turns in a row, and am not doing any damage, that reflects supremacy of chaos over control. There's literally nothing more I can do tactically, to 'do better'. Likewise, even with hundreds of hours of experience, and employing the best tactics, there's nothing I could do to prevent a late-scenario counter attack to deny my victory. It's a random event, and it completely destroys all that careful planning.
@@WiseGuyHistory yeah that sounds like a 'bad beat' for sure. That's prob the other thing I wish the game emphasized as it teaches- it's not just one mission, but a campaign. You can replay a mission gone bad, and based on how you did be getting good XP even though you didn't win. Level up those troops and get them the next time! And to be fair, you're fighting those damn Veteran paratroopers through much of that first campaign. It's prob why after over 70 days of fighting the 9th still wasn't much further south then St Lo. :)
Based on your overview and the comments I am going to skip this game. I like tactical wargames but this one is obviously flawed and there are better ones out there. Thanks for sharing though, appreciated! Take care Nathan :-)