Field of Glory Review

Field of Glory Cover. By Osprey Publishing. Cheeky recycling tip #4: Make images from previous articles new by adding cheeky recycling tips.

Now that I’ve had a chance to read my copy of Field of Glory I thought that it might be a good time to share my thoughts on it. This review is not based on playtesting. The closest I’ve come to playing the game is to run a few test combats using playing cards at my desk at work.

Field of Glory is a new game produced by Osprey Publishing and Slitherine Software and written by Richard Bodley Scott, Simon Hall and Terry Shaw. It is intended for Ancient and Medieval Wargaming in 15 to 28mm scale. The book claims it can be used for any scale, though many seem to think 15mm will be the tournament standard.

The game is played using Battle Groups comprised of multiple stands of miniatures. Casualty removal, a small portion of the rules, is done by stand. All stands are of a constant width, 40mm for 10-15mm, 60mm for 25-28mm. Depth depends on the type of base, but is acknowledged as not being very important. The most important rule for basing is that everything follows the same standard, with depths adjustable to accommodate larger miniatures.

The turn is UGO-IGO, with a number of phases where both players are involved. Players have indicated that there is less down-time for inactive players than in other games. Interestingly, there are two distinct combat phases separated by a movement phase. The first, the Impact Phase, is where the effects of the charge are modelled. Numbers are less important, since it only represents the initial contact. After a movement phase where bases can be funnelled into combat, but not new combats initiated, there is a second combat phase. Hear, numbers make a bigger difference, as well as small differences in weaponry.

With two combat phases, shooting inevitably takes a back seat to the melee. This reflects the writer’s opinions on the effects of shooting in ancient warfare. I, personally, tend to agree. If shooting where that effective, than combat would have looked more like Horse and Musket with bow and arrow, rather than what it is currently accepted to be.

Combat is relatively bloodless, dependant more on breaking your opponent’s morale. This, again, is one of those things I feel is self-evident from the descriptions of the battle. Just read how many warriors fought, how many died, and realize that most of the casualties occurred when a unit broke. Yes, men died, and there are casualties in the game, though it isn’t likely that a large unit will simply evaporate through casualties after a few rounds of combat. However, apply force to the right area of an opponent’s line and you may cause their whole army to rout.

Command and control is handled by command bases moving independently about the battlefield. They can be used in a number of different ways, from helping to ensure that a battle group is able to move where it needs to move, reinforcing the morale of wavering sections, or jumping right in and getting their hands dirty in the front line. It is a balance of competing priorities. Commanders fighting in the front line can’t do much to bolster a battle group floundering in another section of the battlefield.

I haven’t had a chance to play yet. I’m sure regular readers of my blog will not be overly surprised by that admission. My conclusions are based on reading other gamer’s battle reports, and from reading the rules carefully a couple of times. There have been rule systems which I felt had really innovative mechanics. For example: The Face of Battle is a WWII skirmish game where each soldiers is given a number of cards based on their abilities. The cards are included in one deck per side, with players drawing a card and taking actions with the soldier revealed simultaneously. There was much I liked about that game, but in the end, I felt I was playing a rule mechanic with a WWII theme.

Field of Glory, while having strong mechanics that I look forward to exploring, seems very focused on creating a playable game of ancients. When I think what I can do with the rules, what scenarios and types of game I’d like to play, I don’t see the rules getting in the way. The rules serve the game, not the other way around.

The rules are definitely more expensive than warrants picking up a copy on a whim. I would, however, definitely recommend them for someone looking for a good first historical wargame as many army sets are being released by various miniature manufacturers in order to cash in on the rules popularity. With an attractive, well written and illustrated set of rules, I can see a new player easily getting into the rule set if they happen to pick it up off the shelf of their local Chapters, one of the stated goals of the writers.

Experienced gamers will more than likely know someone who has a copy and will have little trouble giving the rules a shot using their existing army. I doubt they would regret making the effort.

Tyler