The font is very small and light. You won't need the hubble telescope, but I needed to hold it it good light and up close to read it. In th eone game I tried, I was conscious of having to really peer at the writing. It is a poor feature. In FoGN, the CinC is assumed to be a Corps commander, commanding 2-4 divisions. FoGN is based around units of four (or six) bases representing whole 'regiments' (or British brigades). Because of the scale, units fight in a standard 2x2 'Tactical' formation.
There was a review of Napoleonic rulesets a while back in WI (a year or two ago was it?) and Field of Glory didn't impress the reviewer overmuch. If I remember rightly the top two were Black Powder and Lasalle.
"You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me, it's a full time job." – Lt. Bromhead to Prince Dabulamanzi before the Battle of Rorke's Drift.
FoGN has been written in a very technical style - the rules take the form of lists of bullet points for what a player can and cannot do, and is very clear. It's not a joy to read like Rick Priestley's fun style in 'Blackpowder' - but FoGN gets the job done.
A standard unit in the game represents a regiment. Because it is assumed that a player is taking the role of a Corps commander, he is not concerned with the precise formations employed by his battalions (i.e. line, column, square), so most of the time a unit will fight in "tactical' formation.
In contrast to BP (where the rules try to make things as characterful as possible), FoGN has no special rules. So, for example, a British army fights in no different style from an Austrian army (though British have better quality). Part of the interest (for me) in this period is that different nations employed different doctrines. FoGN doesn't do that - most infantry in the game, for example, are "Line infantry, Average, Drilled."
The army lists that are in the book are - errr - in need of further work. 1810-11 Anglo-Portugese get the equivalent of 5 brigades of cavalry (!), and how on earth did Portugese Dragoons become "Average Drilled"?! A French army of 1813 has no dragoons or cuirassiers - go figure.
The two games I've played the game has felt like a complicated version of 'Lasalle' (if you are familiar with those rules). By the second game we had grasped the rules pretty well. The multitude of different Cohesion Tests and Complex Move Tests needed constant reference though. The game flowed well, and with more experience I can see the games being very good tactical contests. It didn't have any holes like we have found BP to have.
[quote][National Characteristics reflected in troop quality is what napoleonics is all about so the rules wouldnt be a goer for me/quote] Amen. If a wargame can't reflect the unique personality and tactics of the particular armies of an era, then the game is really just chess with expensive miniatures. I mean, in this period the British fought in two-deep lines to maximise their shooting - if a rule set can't capture that basic and unique characteristic for the British, then the rules fail as napoleonic wargame rules. In this period Russian commanders believed that "the bullet is foolish, the bayonet wise" so they emphasised bayonet charges in dense columns, so if a Russian army in a game plays little differently to a French army but with extra cannons then those rules are a fail.