FOGN (Field Of Glory: Napoleonics) is a regimental game where 1 unit is a regiment. It has small units (1200-2000 men for infantry) and large units (2000-3000 men). This means it is an in-between scale game (sort of like Principles of War), where you can change formation into things that look like column, line, square and skirmish but aren't really (and in practice you stay in one formation for most of the game in FOGN).
Mechanics are OK, nothing too original, but nothing to scare the horses. The North Shore Wargaming Club (Auckland, N.Z.) does seem to have played it a bit. In fact they have contributed nearly all the play test reports on the FOGN website (which is a bit worrying).
My take of Nap gaming is that there are lots of rules that are, more or less, good. But one niche that is missing at present is the "competition" style rules - where you design a moderate sized (200-ish figures) xxx pt army from the official army lists, turn up to play a 3-4 hour game that well play-balanced, where the rules are specific on what happens in any situation, and gives is a clear result. Something that works well for a 4-6 round competition.
I accept that many Nap players and many at our club are not interested in such games, preferring scenarios or refights (preferably with huge armies) - but there are many rules that cater for them. To get Naps going as a period, the casual or lapsed players needed to lured back.
FOGN is aimed firmly at the "competition" game. Like FOG it strips out a lot of things that were important in Napoleonic battles (e.g. weather) to keep play balancing easier. My gut feeling is there is a demand for such rules, albeit not from the grognards currently playing Naps.
Sam Mustafa's LaSalle looks more the game I want (being a competition style game but at the battalion level). Interestingly I see on TMP that Sam wrote an early version of FOGN - I did see quite a few parallels between the bits he has released for LaSalle and FOGN.
Author: Campbell Millar.
