Name a good movie sequel or two. I bet you have trouble naming half a dozen. Although every hit (and even non-hit) movie in the last 25 years has had at least one sequel made, only a scant handful are worth watching. Good for us gamer-type folks that game publishers are better at sequels (okay, ASL excepted). Richard Berg’s Fields of Glory (FoG) is certainly a worthy sequel to his A Famous Victory (AFV). FoG addresses the battles of Oudenarde (1708) and Malplaquet (1709). The battles are quite different from each other, and also different from AFV’s battles of Blenheim and. Oudenarde is a meeting engagement, rare in the horse-and-musket era, with both armies arriving piecemeal (the Anglo-Allies were racing to save Oudenarde, the French to take it). Malplaquet, on the other hand, is an assault on a fortified position: a sticky wicket indeed.
Opening the box reveals some very attractive components. The backprinted maps by Rick Barber are a major improvement over the AFV maps, assuming that you like green. Villages and bridges look realistic, windmills grace the Oudenarde map, along with the spiffy, Vauban-style fortress of the city, itself, while the Malplaquet map is extensively forested. A very pleasant and visually appealing overall effect. Also on the plus side, there are handy tracks for game-turn and fatigue levels. The downside is that the busier colors make it difficult to read some of the hex numbers, adding to the rather drawn-out pain of the Malplaquet setup.
The counters are improved as well. The leaders now sport nice, little portraits, instead of the halberd or spontoon of AFV. The combat units still have the same icons as they did in AFV, but this time there was an effort to have differently colored uniform coats. Sadly, many of the admittedly generic uniform colors are still wrong. I can't say much about the little principalities, but the French (excepting the Swiss and Irish, who now have their red coats), Dutch and Danes are definitely incorrect. Evidently not enough customers complained the first time. However, in a definite improvement over AFV, FoG’s counters disordered status - previously indicated by a retina-tearing, faintly colored stripe - is now clearly indicated by black boxes around the strength and movement factor numbers, distinguishing them from the white boxes ordered units sport.
The rules were easy to read, with a decent Table of Contents but regrettably no index. The rules editing, on the other hand, was less helpful. An example: the charge reaction table in the rules is missing the [b] footnotes (the chart version of the table is clearer). A second example is a stray note in 11.47 which says "infantry never use the reaction table." Modifiers, however, exist on the reaction table that explicitly apply to infantry and not cavalry. Annoying but not serious [Ed. and clarified in the usual errata].
None of our findings posed major difficulties; with common sense and a reasonable, intelligent opponent (one Joe Oxymoron by name) you should be able to work out any questions. Several charts and tables are also provided as player aids. One curious change is that FoG uses all 10-sided dice; AFV used d6’s for fire and d10's for everything else).
Army organization still plays a major role in how the game works. The armies consist of a center and wings, which are in turn made up of lines (the Napoleonic analog would be corps and divisions). Lines are homogeneous, roughly linear groups of combat units led by a line commander, and it's the lines that are truly the maneuver elements of the army. Troops out of line parameters are restricted to moving one hex or attempting a rally (not too useful with a line of dour Scots mercs grimly marching your way). The army's leadership follows its organization: the line commanders report to a wing commander; the wing commanders in turn report to the overall commander. All these command levels are represented in the game with specific leaders.
Command and control limitations of the period are modeled by the use of Berg's Leader Initiative Marker (LIM) concept (very similar to that found in his Waterloo; differences arise from the looser organization of the Baroque-era armies). Each player, each turn, first picks a Command Point chit; command points determine how many LIMs a player may choose. The Anglo-Allies are slightly favored, and strangely, the overall leaders do not affect command points in any way. Each player then picks a number of LIMs equal to the command points previously chosen and places them in a cup. The players then blindly draw the LIMs out of the cup. Each LIM corresponds to a leader, and picking the LIM activates its leader. The leader's troops may then accomplish wondrous feats (at least compared to what they can do if one does not have their LIM to pick). Following the LIM activations, you may attempt to fully activate un-selected lines by die roll against a leader’s initiative (mind that even the best leaders only have a forty percent chance of success, and failure means you do nothing) or give the leader a limited activation (units may half-move or rally, but not fight). Finally you tie up the loose ends by giving the unfortunate out-of-command troops their turn (they get to move one hex or rally). It sounds more complicated than it is, and it does a neat job of representing the focused attention of the army commanders without plotted orders.
Combat also appears convoluted, although, in play, it is relatively straightforward. The routines for combat impart the horse and musket atmosphere. The infantry line marches up to their opponents. Both sides exchange first fire (half strength because it's the initial long range volleys), then full fire (volleys at less than a hundred yards). Any attackers not disordered by the defenders may press home and shock with cold steel. Horse, unlike foot, has several flavors of attacking, depending on who owns it. This varies from the full tilt charge of the English (Look, Ma, no pistols!) to the caracole practiced by almost everyone else (your horse rides up, shoots, then rides back - no, you cannot exploit success). Horse charges are interesting because the defender must roll for reaction, which can vary from the defenders disordering before the horse arrive to the defenders greeting the horse with an airborne lead hazard area. English, Dutch and French horse may even counter-charge; it's better to give than receive.
Be prepared, though, for mucho rolling of dice. In foot combat, for example: units exchange first fire, then full fire, then (possibly) shock. That's 3 die rolls per attacking unit, and we haven't considered combats results (which means probably two or three more die rolls - disorder checks and the like). Cavalry combat results in even more wrist strain, as you must check for defender reaction. The combat routines definitely have plenty of period feel, but the heavy wristage is admittedly one of the weaknesses of the game.
Of the two battles, Oudenarde is the more manageable. Only a handful of troops start on the board, and the reinforcements arrive gradually enough that you have time to dig them out and get them in order. There’s plenty of suspense as both sides have obstacles to overcome: the Allies have the rickety Scheldt River bridges to cross, while the French have their rickety command system (in this case, feuding overall commanders). Because troop density (at least initially) is so low, you can get away with actions that would be suicidal elsewhere. For example, my lobsterback foot charged the French horse... and succeeded! Wild and woolly indeed, as the initiative swirls back and forth with the arrival of each side's fresh troops. Malplaquet, on the other hand, is a set-piece, grind-it-out assault, with a beastly set up (hardly surprising, as it was the largest European land battle until Napoleon) and hex numbers that are difficult to see amid all that greenery.
We enjoyed playing FoG. Sure, the die rolling is a lot of work, but you get suspense, color, pageantry, the Maison du Roi, and plenty of period feel. What more can you ask of a game?
Capsule Comments
Graphic Presentation: Excellent, a decided improvement over its predecessor.
Playability: Although occasionally daunting (wait 'til you see Malplaquet set up), it's not a difficult system to play. Don't expect a speedy resolution. Good solitaire.
Replayability: Depends on the scenario. Oudenarde: very good (variability of reinforcements). Malplaquet: much less so (fixed setup, limited French capabilities).
Creativity: The LIM concept works very nicely for this era.
Wristage: Argh, painful.
Historicity: Impressive research.
Comparisons: The closest other games, subject-wise are those from COA's Age of Reason series which, regrettably, I haven't played. Nothing else in the area.
Overall: A very good effort, with suspense and decisions to make.
from MOMENTS IN HISTORY
One 22" x 33" backprinted map, 840 counters, rules book, 4 player aid cards. Boxed. MiH at 805-534-9723. $42
Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 23 Table of Contents
Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 by Richard Berg
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com