After my solo adventure, I set up, with the help of other devotees, a dual game:
- a. The ping pong table was divided into two halves, each approximately 5 feet by 5 feet.
b. On Table-half A, we set out two opposing 25mm forces of three battle groups each. On this table, we would use FLOC procedures to see how the battle went.
c. On Table-half B, we set out the same opposing forces. Here we would use my own knightly knight rules, as described in the last issue of the REVIEW (Nov/Dec, '94). For the sake of brevity, let us refer to these rules as Simon's Guide to Medievalistics. (SGM).
d. The procedure was an alternate one: we would complete Turn #1 on Table A, then Turn #1 on Table B. Then off to Table A for Turn #2, followed by Table B for Turn #2. And so on until both battles were finished.
This would give us a turn-by-turn, blow-by-blow comparison of the progress of each engagement.
The first noticeable item concerned the movement rates of the forces on the two tables. Each side on both tables had contingents of mounted Nobles. FLOC limited these to a movement distance of 3 inches per action when a side drew its action card.
The draw of a "3" card (the largest action card) gave the cavalry a maximum move of 9 inches. This movement rate pretty much equaled the FLOC infantry rate, so that the infantry easily kept up with the horsemen.
Under SGM, cavalry moved a maximum of 16 inches per turn, infantry moved at 10 inches... which meant that SGM horsemen soon outdistanced their infantry.
The result was easily foreseeable; On Table B, the SGM table, we engaged in two melees before any of the FLOC troops of Table A ever came together.
Another noticeable item concerned the length of the melee itself. SGM melees were single-round affairs; the opposing units would come into contact, strike at each other, a winner would be declared, and off rode the loser to lick his wounds. All in the same half-bound. In contrast, FLOC's combats were well drawn out. On Side A's active phase, i.e., his half of the bound, his men would strike at the opposition, and if hit, the target unit would take a morale test. Then on Side B's active half of the turn, B's men would strike, and a morale test would follow.
If both sides held (most of the time they did), the melee continued on to the next half of the bound.
FLOC melees were, therefore, multi-turn affairs, ending when a unit was completely annihilated, or it failed its morale test.
The actual gaming time per turn was about the same for both sets of rules. FLOC requires the players to cogitate about the orders to be assigned to the battle groups, and the possible effect on the Battlelust factors of the troops. SGM also requires some cogitation, as each leader contributes all sorts of assisting points to his units: he helps them out in combat, in morale tests, and in rallying.
We played for a total of about 6 turns, and compared results.
On the FLOC table, things were looking bad for my side. All my 6stand infantry units were down in size. I had eliminated the opposing cavalry, but with my own moving at 3-inches-per-action, it would be some time before I could get them back into the fight.
Another key factor which slowed up my horsemen, was the need to keep one eye on the Battlelust (BL) factor, and slow the entire battle group down now and then to let it get its breath and lower its BL figure.
On the SGM table, things were about as bad. Here, too, the enemy horsemen had been annihilated, but my cavalry were way, way out on the flank, too far to help the remnants of my infantry from being annihilated themselves.
In short, the outcomes were pretty much the same, an interesting result considering the completely different approaches taken by both sets of rules.
Sometime back, I observed part of a FLOC game hosted by the author at HISTORICON and it worked well. The fact that the author was table-side helped, of course.
As I mentioned before, only four pages out of the 76 page text are devoted to the rules. And I have to admit the rules are the essence of simplicity, making the most of an alternate movement system. But, from my solo exercise and the dual game set-up, I can honestly say that four pages are not enough to spell out all the details and nitty-gritty of trying to meld together the concepts of the action card deck, of Battlelust points, of 5 types of orders, and the need to specifically identify the effect of the order charts on the units of the affected battle.
And one last note, this dealing with the relative strengths of the weaponry involved. I have been taken to task in the past because I focus mainly on the mechanisms of the sequence, (i.e., does the sequence work, and is it playable?) and because I ignore, for the most part, the formations and the weapons' strengths set out by the author.
As I've said before, I tend to trust the rules author in his evaluation of weaponry. FLOC states, for example, that in melee, an artillery unit will strike an opposing unit... any opposing unit... by tossing a "1" on a 10-sided die. FLOC states that a unit of Men at Arms will strike an opposing mounted unit by tossing a "1,2,3" on the die, and an opposing foot unit with a "1,2,'3,4" on the die. I have no quarrel with this approach. The rules author, in setting up his system, has specific objectives in mind, and has set out his evaluation of the relative merits of each aspect of combat to attain these objectives.
I know of several savants in our hobby, experts all, who, after perusing a particular set of rules, immediately take issue with the number of pips required for a unit of Men at Arms to produce an impact on the opposition. In truth, it matters not what set... they instinctively know better than the author as to what's going on.
Not I. Unlike my wiser and better informed cohorts, I am in no position to judge the accuracy of the given numbers. What I am in position to do, however, is to judge the flow of the game, and whether or not the sequence leads to an interesting encounter. I'll give FLOC 8 out of 10 on this.
Back to PW Review January 1995 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 Wally Simon
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