but they weren't fighting Syracuse for 'majority' control. For most of the period 450-310 Carthage had that (in game terms) it was to destroy a major commercial rival on their doorstep, so I'd suggest hooking the objective to Syracuse itself is pretty accurate. I disagree. Carthage was trying to bu...

to be fair, the game probably should start with a scripted war between Carthage and Syracuse, it was their core goal and there had been 4 major wars between the two powers in the previous century. more generally, I like that you have little control or players would just allocate their objectives to...

Before dynamic objectives, we had fixed objectives which would be the same every game. That was demonstrably worse than the current system, IMO. I did try playing again after the dynamic objective patch, but not for long enough to notice the difference. Carthage had the same starting objectives. e....

Give each faction objective provinces, like in Total War Rome 2. For every turn that provincial control is disrupted, they don't gain VPs for it. The concept of random, changing objective cities seems arbitrary and has also kept me from going back to the game.

So objectives are even more random now after the patch? I suppose, if that means e.g. Carthage doesn't need to conquer Syracuse to win the campaign it's a good thing. However, I didn't like having a random generator pulling me around by my nose - it felt wrong for a 4x game - and I suspect that's ev...

Agreed, the objective system is my only major gripe with the game. I actually stopped playing because objectives are crucial to the victory conditions, so I'm hoping they will be fixed.

I usually export battles if the odds are closer than 65/35, or if I'm expecting to fight another battle with the army the next turn. I'm not worried about suffering a few extra casualties through autoresolve if I'll have a turn or two to recover losses.

- The integration of FoG II came up after the project started during Slytherine conference. It is not planned to combine the games however the interaction is easy enough to maintain so there will be cooperation in the future. Adding sieges in the future was one thing mentioned. Why would they call ...

And if you do that every game is railroaded down the same path. Not for me thanks. The beauty of this game is the variety in the playthrough's. Objectives are to an extent historically based but they are not totally rigid. Objective cities are railroady by their very nature; they're crucial to winn...

Paradox succeed without a tactical battle system. They have the privilege and momentum of a huge player base, good for them! We definitively want to continue support Empires, rest assured :) It's too late, you already have the best tactical battle system in the ancients market. That cat isn't going...

I wouldn't be interested in playable battles tbh, irl logictics would become nightmare. The battles would need to be played in real-time rather than PBEM, so they could be resolved in 1-2 hours, and there would have to be an option to let the AI control your forces if you can't make time on a given...

FoG will become a commercial success if it someday achieves the holy grail of "4x game with playable battles in (3+) multiplayer campaigns". Currently FoG offers improvements over TW, Paradox etc. in some areas, and is inferior in others. Not a big enough leap forward to justify the learni...

I am still trying to decide whether to buy the game, and haven't had time to read the manual yet. But from the list above, the tactical combat system in FOG:E sounds rather rudimentary, to put it mildly. Are the tactical battles actually any fun to play? The FoG:E battle system is not fun. However,...

I totaly disagree with you. FoG2 has more than enough units and its definetly balanced for gameplay (I spent countles hours playing that game) so not sure what you meant. And if some nations have a weaker roster than it's all the more fun to try conquering the world. Fortunately FoG:E isn't about c...

Hopefully the Pyrrhus scenario isn't indicative of the design standards of future DLC scenarios.

kvnrthr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:24 pmYou don't have to take any of the objective zones on the map. Take Rome and you win automatically.

If Pyrrhus can only win by capturing Rome then what's the point of the objective cities?

The Pyrrhus scenario is difficult as Epirus, but it would be doable if the objective system didn't make it completely pointless. My first objective city was Tarentum (owned by my Ally). The next 2 objective cities were Messana and Syracuse (owned by Syracuse). I wasn't assigned an objective in Roman...

It represents the loss of prestige of losing key holdings. The game does not represent prestige very much, but it was very important. Conquering or losing Babylon would be a huge hit because of what that particular city represents. In the same way, a macedonian state losing Pella would get a huge p...

Hendricus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:54 pmIf you look for skirmishers you have to enlist them on the Mediterranean Isles, named Mercenary Skirmishers.

The mercenary skirmishers recruited from the islands are exported as slingers in FoG2. This might be a programming error though.

Next time you're at war against someone stronger than you and leading in the CDR table, take his objectives out. They will fall from glorious to old, then decadent, and you can rejoice seeing them crumble from internal problems because you targetted their key provinces. So strategically, these obje...