Jump to content



Photo

FFG, realism please


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Nikator

Nikator

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 08:24 AM

It seem’s to me that FFG collectible Game series are prone to get freaky. Look at Dust Tactics, they started with Grenadiers and now they are already at Gorillas and Zombies.
With the neutral expansions BoW already started the downward slide away from realism
- Mountain Cavalry
- Starting to plunder on the battlefield increases the combat power
- Raider…steal resources (= order token)? Well, maybe, if we think of units with fast reactions or deceptive qualities to irritate the enemy. But it would be nice if this works only at line of sight, that a specific token could not be used, not across the whole battlefield.
The Crowds attention has to be caught by more and more exotic abilities? Really?
There are already enough realistic abilities available, look at CCA or in history. E.g. the barbaric furor with lack of stamina after the first onslaught would have been a fine characterization for the tribes of the vale, as already used for ancient Germans and Gauls.
 



#2 NXS

NXS

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 05:05 AM

The robot/mechs/walkers from the starter set, alongside with Sigrid's cleavage seemed very realistic and historically accurate for 1947.

Not to mention the fact that WW2 had been over for two years at that point.

Please.



#3 IraShaine1972

IraShaine1972

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 03:06 PM

These are fantasy and sci-fi based games.  I think that you are leaning towards is historicals.

 

You might be discouraged to learn that there are dragons and undead in Westeros.



#4 Rashley

Rashley

    Member

  • Members
  • 247 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 10:04 PM

I have to admit that I would personally like to see more 'fantasy' elements in this game.  The books are very strongly in the medieval environment, but they were classed as 'fantasy novels' and subsequently need at least some 'magical' elements.  The only true 'fantasy' bits in the books are the Dragons, Undead White Walkers, and Melisandra's magic.  The rest is  really only the mixing of a mass of different human cultures.  That leads to just small differences in unit types.  The only really different type of unit so far is the 'Dogs of War' ability to represent the Starks Dire Wolves.  Until this game adds things like Dragons, Undead and proper Magic, it will remain a medieval battle game.  Still a good game with a great setting and I would hate to see it get 'silly' and 'unrealistic', but my vote would go towards more 'fantasy'.  Keep your fingers crossed as my agent has sent me for the part of Maester Cressen in the 2nd series of 'A Game of Thrones'. IF, and it's a big IF, I get it, I might get some inside info.  Cheers!



#5 Ken on Cape

Ken on Cape

    Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 02:02 AM

NXS said:

The robot/mechs/walkers from the starter set, alongside with Sigrid's cleavage seemed very realistic and historically accurate for 1947.

Not to mention the fact that WW2 had been over for two years at that point.

Please.

 

Dust Tactics is set in and alternate history earth.  It has never claimed to be a historylly accurate WW2 game. 



#6 Jorugburn

Jorugburn

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 23 July 2011 - 12:42 AM

Ken on Cape said:

 

 

 

 

Dust Tactics is set in and alternate history earth.  It has never claimed to be a historylly accurate WW2 game. 

 

 

 

I think that was the point of his post. Dust Tactics was never meant to be a historic representation just as BoW wasnt.



#7 Old Dwarf

Old Dwarf

    Member

  • Members
  • 448 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 10:19 AM

I just finished Dance of Dragons & it does have more magicial stuff than the previous books.So if FFG keeps putting out Expansions it would seem that more Fantasy Elements will come into the Game.

 

OD


A Dwarf in Winter


#8 DragonWhimsy

DragonWhimsy

    Member

  • Members
  • 116 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 08:22 AM

I'm actually really glad it's starting to go a little more fantasy. Magic is rare in Westeros but when it does show up it's important. You can't accurately set a game in that world without having magic effect things to some extent. More as the war progresses especially. I expect it will be the same for the game.

I think it'll help broaden the appeal of the game as well and help them create a lot of unique units.

And if you like the straight up medieval combat you can always just buy the expansions that don't have magic and only play out those battles.

On the other hand... the zombies and apes are why I decided not to get Dust Tactics. That's too over the top for me in a WW2 setting even if it is a sci-fi WW2. But everything is personal preference I suppose.


"Do you know the difference between an error and a mistake, Ensign? Anyone can make an error, but that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." -Grand Admiral Thrawn

 


#9 IraShaine1972

IraShaine1972

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 16 August 2011 - 02:36 PM

Old Dwarf said:

I just finished Dance of Dragons & it does have more magicial stuff than the previous books.So if FFG keeps putting out Expansions it would seem that more Fantasy Elements will come into the Game.

 

OD

 

I was about to make a similar comment.  While I have not actually finished DWD at a little over half way through there has been alot more of the high fantasy style elements so far in this book than in all the others put together.  Martin is really starting to reveal the mystical heritage that still remains as a rarely seen underbelly of Westeros and the world of Ice and Fire as a whole.

This book opens alot of new doors.



#10 madmaxknick50

madmaxknick50

    Member

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 04:56 PM

 More fantasy and more sci-fi are what I want to see in these games. 



#11 StarkDad

StarkDad

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 23 August 2011 - 08:58 AM

I strongly agree with Niktor.  While the books have some fantasy elements, they are firmly grounded in medieval reatliy.  This is one of the many reasons they pull in the reader in, you can almost taste the mud...

The Stark "dog" handlers and maiden guard are examples of two elements that make little sense and are not in the books.  Huge mistakes.

The books have plenty of interesting elements and characters.  The closer you stick to how things work and 'feel' in the books the better the game.

TomT



#12 BCanilho

BCanilho

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 10:12 PM

I believe the game has a good balance with the books. The books are a fantasy medieval romance with a spice of magic.

About the dog handlers and she maidens you can see them in the books also. Dogs have been widely used to track for example Bran and Rickon when they escape from Winterfell, and i believe that i read somewere that in Bear (?) island the woman also grab their shields and sword when the need comes.

With the Brotherhood w/o banners the revive ability of Thoros and with the new Baratheon expansion the magic intensifies, essentialy with Melissandre´s Fire God and their Shadow broodlings ( Renly´s assassin).

Now accordingly with the path that FFG goes we might see Dragons (Targaryen) our Wildlings/Giants/Mamoths/Other (Wall), lets wait and see.

Was expecting tho see some ships figurines dought, and not the ships tokens… Maybee with Greyjoy.

Also a nice addition would be some "premium" miniatures of buildings/siege towers/pallisades/bridges instead of the tokens, would give a nice 3D effect to the borad, you could also model them of course.



#13 StarkDad

StarkDad

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:35 AM

Actually the Dogs are never used in combat but for tracking - a completely different use than in the game.  Same for the "she-maidens" they have no equivalant in the book other than a couple of female "fighter" characters - not units of females.

 

Why base the game in Westeros and than ignore the setting by making up stuff that's not approprate to the books?  You could add Chaos Knights and Steam Tanks to Tolkien  based games but it would not be approprate to the setting.

 

Likewise why base a game on a WWII setting and than just through in the kitchen sink.

 

If you want an anything goes fantasy/scifi game play Warhammer or 40K.  If you want a literary or history based game try …. well I had hoped to list Battles for Westros and DUST but they seem to be drifiting away….

 

TomT



#14 pcelella

pcelella

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:59 PM

I agree that some of the unit types are silly and out of sync with the gritty "realism" of the Westoros literary atmosphere. In my opinion, most of the units should reflect ones typical of 14th to 15th Century European ones. And some of them don't even seem to match the ones in the novels - for instance, in the early battles at the end of "A Game of Thrones", the Starks are mentioned as having pike-armed infantry. That should be a typical unit type for them.

Has anyone thought of doing a modification with more realistic unit types? Maybe by incorporating units like those used in the Commands and Colors Ancients game?



#15 Nikator

Nikator

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 12:07 PM

pcelella said:

I agree that some of the unit types are silly and out of sync with the gritty "realism" of the Westoros literary atmosphere. In my opinion, most of the units should reflect ones typical of 14th to 15th Century European ones. And some of them don't even seem to match the ones in the novels - for instance, in the early battles at the end of "A Game of Thrones", the Starks are mentioned as having pike-armed infantry. That should be a typical unit type for them.

Has anyone thought of doing a modification with more realistic unit types? Maybe by incorporating units like those used in the Commands and Colors Ancients game?

 

 

Hi All,

i have not looked at my thread for months and was remembered by seeing it popping up in the Bow Forum with a new answer. My attention was directed towards BoW again because i have just concluded a deal to sell my english components as the german line has stabilized (i want not to be caught like Battlelore with a stopped german product line) with the Baratheon expansion in German language and i'm now planning to buy a lot of BoW stuff at Essen.

I don't want to play BoW original but now to try in earnest a more realistic variant to simulate medieval warfare. The easiest way is first to scrap the keywords and define new ones, which would not even touch the main rules. But i still think that more should be done, as the original core system had some defencies that has been partly tried to be solved by the later optional rules like coordinated attacks or withdrawal.



#16 SFRR

SFRR

    Member

  • Members
  • 98 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:11 PM

 As primarily a wargamer, not a fantasy player, I think BoW actually does quite well as a tactical level wargame.  There are a few things I wish were better; I wish Hills were more advantageous to reflect the actual importance of high ground in small unit / small area warfare, and I think the Green Rank units could have been thought through a little more rationally as they aren't really professional light infantry nor are they the unreliable militia or rabble - but beyond those things the game succeeds really well as a quasi-medieval tactical warfare game.

So far the scenarios seem pretty balanced, and are really fun, different and creative.  I DO love the theme, and I do immerse myself in it (which is odd for me, since the "Song of Ice & Fire" series represents the first fiction books I have read in over a decade), but BoW is actually quite good just as an interesting wargame.  Maybe some of the things in the game are "unrealistic" like the Shield Maidens, or the "Looters" and such, but putting that aside, the game mechanics and tactical basics of the game are sound and really fun to play.

 


(SFRR) aka Siferr Stark





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS