Fields of Fire

I just Googled something about the game and came across your review:

boardgamegeek.com/thread/printerfriendly/382102

What's the story behind the pretty volunteer developer?

Gary's review is really good. I wrote a long review and then read his and he said everything I did only first and better.

I am probably the pretty volunteer developer he is talking about. I read through a draft of the rules for GMT a while ago..more than a year probably and made a suggestion or two but don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

I'm interested if you, Gary, think the new rule book has any value. As both you and I broke through the barrier of the first rule book and learned the game the hard way, will it benefit either of us to have a second rule book. I hope it makes it easier for a new person to learn the game because it really is fantastic.

I wish they'd get around to putting out the sequel with Marines already. That I am looking forward to.

Thanks for the.kind words on the review.

I wasn't referring to you, repo, but the general wargame developer policy... I was actually thinking of Ricky Gray who was developer after release. He can't have been paid much or anything to go through this morass. Same for most lower profile P500s.

It's a real shame, though I understand the resource constraints. The developer quality is probably a huge part of what makes any given P500 successful and it's a crapshoot---my favorite developer is Jon Foley who did the FAB series, he's amazing. It's why so many Berg games come out so bad. He considers his job done once he finishes basic design and hands off. Which makes perfect sense from his history working in the biz when it was structured differently (Avalon Hill) but it's really a crapshoot today when you don't know much about your developer quality. I also think he's a bad designer but that's a different issue...

The Fields of Fire designer has been very busy (deployed off and on IIRC) so his games have been pretty slapdash, Won by the Sword is supposed to be a mess. But technically he's supposed to be able to rely on a developer to do most of the heavy lifting on design, rules, proofing, etc.

I'm also super hyped for the Marines module. EXTREMELY curious to play this system in urban modern setting.

I just read through the 2017 rules they have posted. It is a *huge* improvement. I don't know what people are talking about who say it is not. I think people just want this to be a more familiar and intuitive system than it is. It's just not going to be, and I wouldn't want the system to become more traditional either tbh.

Anyway, everything is much clearer. They have added 2-3 contextual sentences to almost every section that at least give a narrative logic to when you would do something or how in plain english it works. Here's an example. Section on the action Infiltration starts with this: "Infiltration is movement under enemy fire." That sounds trivial (what is it and why would I do it?) but it was not in the first rulebook!

They've also cleaned up the rules considerably. Pyrotechnics commands are now limited and easily intelligible. Smoke makes a lot more sense. Radios have a good example in the rulebook. Picking up and carrying items has more concrete rules now! FINALLY they have created patrol rules. Patrols still seem like weird mini missions but I get why they're in the game, it's a lot of what troops do day in and day out.

Movement, the most basic thing you do, has been cleaned up immensely (unlimited move within cards, no movement between cards while carrying an exposed marker. LOS has tons of examples and has been cleaned up.

I'm sure there are holes but this would have solved almost all my problems when I first got the game. It is just a hard game to learn unless you read an example of play or watch a playthrough but it's no longer because of giant gaps in the rules or huge contradictions.

Also, to anyone braving the rules (I just sent my copy of 1st edition to cranberries). Would it be helpful for me to create a 4-6 card one platoon intro scenario? Would strip out a lot of the complexity and focus only on movement and platoon actions, probably create an auto activate platoon HQ and take out lots of command chain stuff too.

An introduction scenario sounds great. I just don't know enough to know if it would be helpful, but it sounds helpful.

I'll put something together and post it, along with the rules you can omit. Might have to wait till I get my 2nd edition.

I'm going through the first Vietnam scenario in this, posting a picture per turn on my Instagram.

It is Very Good but of course heavy, complicated lifting. I don't think there's ever been a more anti-Vietnam war wargame than this. I guess maybe Fire in the Lake? But this game just gives you the system and drops you into the Vietnam situations and implicitly is like "Look how fucking stupid these operations were." You could probably get out of it without getting that feeling but I feel like you'd have to be braindead.

My wife is out of town for a week, so I'm setting this up on a table in the front room and learning it this week if it kills me. Expect many questions. I have a copy of the 2017 rules. Are there any files on BGG that are especially helpful?

I've not found any that are particularly helpful.

My advice and/or rules I messed up a lot:

Remember that you don't have total direct control over the squads. They will automatically fire at the first person they have an LOS to and continue to fire at that place even if the enemy are eliminated or run away. You will have to actively order them to cease fire or change target.

Field telephones are superior to radios (at least in the WW2 scenarios) until the lines get cut. Remember that certain attacks/results will cut the lines.

Colored smoke grenades can mean any order you like although you will have to specify what that is at the start of the scenario.

Take it slow, take it step by step. Have a photo copy of the turn order, list of commands, and make up of enemy packages for that scenario handy if possible. You will refer to them a million times and it beats flipping through the book.

As I've said before, it's a learning cliff not a learning curve but if you persevere and make it to the top the view is glorious.

2nd edition makes a few key changes, but not many. It really is about going through the turn order once you understand the basic orders system. I would watch or read an example so you see how a) orders work b) enemies appear/behave c) shooting is resolved.

Then go fuck up and kill like 10 of your platoons in three turns and tell us about it. We will both enjoy it and be able to give you advice!

Playing this tonight, I'm reminded I'd rather play a flawed, creative game than a rote by the numbers slick production. I get why others wouldn't, but...

I am actually *beyond* curious how the second game in the series will be. In particular, I'm really interested in the Iraq missions. The idea of having each squad with excellent radios, and the likely level of off map fire, armor support, and combined arms should make them quite interesting and very different---kind of the last step away from the model that starts in WWII.

Coming into turn 5, I play about an hour at a time, I can safely say war is hell and Vietnam was a nightmare. Like 5-6 casualties already, both NCOs dead, still sort of stuck in the LZ with ineffectual weapons fire on my helos while I land them.

Jesus christ, my commanding officer should be put into military prison for this Fields of Fire mission.

Unspooled my instagram AAR into a BGG post, since it was inspired by someone's very reasonable negative review over there. Here's a link if you're interested:

boardgamegeek.com/thread/2020799/narrati...m-mission-1-aar-wpic

That was a great report, Steve. Really fantastic.

I've been watching the Burns documentary on Vietnam and the soldiers in that doc say very much what you said about that mission. Utter frustration and anger at fighting and dying for pointless objectives that were abandoned soon after capture only to be fought over again in the near future.

Also I liked your point about "gun fondles". FoF is very unique in its approach and much more emotional than just about any other game.