Development wishlist

[pipfromslitherine]

We are constantly improving the engine. But this would be a very specific fix for a 'problem' that only applies to games which implement an undo order, and in a very specific way. It's a poor use of our limited development bandwidth, as RBS said.

That said, I will add it to my todo list for the game.

Cheers

Pip

[Jorgito78]

I got two suggestions. One is about a QOL and the other, I'm sure it's a little controversial, about rules:

1 - Would it be possible (as I think right now it isn't) to check the unit detail panel (ctrl + click) on the deployment screen and when checking the enemy army? (Ctrl clicking the unit name on the army list)
I think that the only way to check the unit detail panel at the moment is by ctrl clicking the unit on the map. It could be good if we could get this information when checking the enemy army list on the deployment screen.

2 - Since there is a penalty for CT if a unit has a threatened flank, perhaps it would be also interesting to have a penalty for CT if a unit has no space to fallback (ex: a unit has other unit behind preventing fallback).

[Karvon]

2 - Since there is a penalty for CT if a unit has a threatened flank, perhaps it would be also interesting to have a penalty for CT if a unit has no space to fallback (ex: a unit has other unit behind preventing fallback).

Perhaps if there were an enemy unit this might be true, but one of the historical advantages of deeper formations was more resilience, so friendly units to the rear preventing pushbacks/fallbacks w/o penalty reflects this after a fashion.

[Jorgito78]

2 - Since there is a penalty for CT if a unit has a threatened flank, perhaps it would be also interesting to have a penalty for CT if a unit has no space to fallback (ex: a unit has other unit behind preventing fallback).

Perhaps if there were an enemy unit this might be true, but one of the historical advantages of deeper formations was more resilience, so friendly units to the rear preventing pushbacks/fallbacks w/o penalty reflects this after a fashion.

Well, fair enough for foot units. But, how about cavalry? I can't see cavalry units taking advantage of this.

[rbodleyscott]

2 - Since there is a penalty for CT if a unit has a threatened flank, perhaps it would be also interesting to have a penalty for CT if a unit has no space to fallback (ex: a unit has other unit behind preventing fallback).

We don't want to give any reward for blocking the retreat of enemy units with light horse. It is too easy to achieve.

[rbodleyscott]

1 - Would it be possible (as I think right now it isn't) to check the unit detail panel (ctrl + click) on the deployment screen and when checking the enemy army? (Ctrl clicking the unit name on the army list)
I think that the only way to check the unit detail panel at the moment is by ctrl clicking the unit on the map. It could be good if we could get this information when checking the enemy army list on the deployment screen.

Noted, but don't hold your breath.

[Jorgito78]

We don't want to give any reward for blocking the retreat of enemy units with light horse. It is too easy to achieve.

Fair enough. I didn't think about that. Well, perhaps the penalty should only be applied to units whose retreat is blocked by their own units. But, of course, I understand that this would be very difficult to implement. Thanks

[kronenblatt]

Add visibility range (currently fixed at 20) as a variable setting (say between 5 and 30) in the Advanced Options when setting up a battle, whether SP or MP.

[Karvon]

Add visibility range (currently fixed at 20) as a variable setting (say between 5 and 30) in the Advanced Options when setting up a battle, whether SP or MP.

I'd like to see a random option as well.

[fogman]

Make the unit banner toggle on/off available in Fog 2 as it is in Medieval.

[DeepTyphoon]

Make the unit banner toggle on/off available in Fog 2 as it is in Medieval.

+1

[tyronec]

Add visibility range (currently fixed at 20) as a variable setting (say between 5 and 30) in the Advanced Options when setting up a battle, whether SP or MP.

Am not sure how this would play but it certainly sounds like it would add a lot to the game.
Would be great to have a go at testing it if that were possible.

[Jorgito78]

About the ranked matches, as RBS stated on discord "The engine does not allow for the existence of draws, so the game client script code decides who wins, and sends scores to the PBEM server accordingly.", would it be possible to add an option to "propose draw" on MP matches?
I am just playing a battle where me and my opponent are just skipping turns on the last 7 turns because we got into a situation where neither of us wants to commit attacking the other. We both have 0% rout.

[kronenblatt]

For multiplayer Ancients as well as Medieval:

Introduce the possibility to make unit quality adjustments for MP (á la SP Centurion and Deity quality adjustments) when creating the challenge, with equal size but in opposite directions for the two players. For example, five steps (0 being default):

++: +25 for Player A, -25 for Player B
+: +12 for Player A, -12 for Player B
0: no adjustments
-: -12 for Player A, +12 for Player B
--: -25 for Player A, +25 for Player B

This could allow players of different quality levels to play against each other through other means than (or in combination with) adjusting FPs.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks

[Straticus]

I really love the empire aspect of this game as Rome, not so much the battles. But I have to say some hair-pulling aspects for me have to do with the random and mystical objective setting by the Senate, which seems to be lobbing objectives out around the world periphery in a rather haphazard and non-strategic manner with no real consideration of the player's current military and political situation.

The other has to do with the real inability to effectively influence the CDR with specific in game actions. It all seems rather haphazard and very difficult to assess cause and effect, so as to influence a positive result. About the only thing I'm sure of is capturing objectives and managing to some minor degree Decadence.

Lastly, Diplomacy negotiations is another area that continues to baffle the mind. I just say want to say 'No Peace' for anyone and leave it at that.

Is there work being done on a future update or possibly Field of Glory - Empires 2. This game has so many possibilities with enhanced AI.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Wrong forum - this is for the Field of Glory II tactical battle game. You want the Field of Glory: Empires forum -
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=534

[Straticus]

Moved...

[Straticus]

Wrong forum - this is for the Field of Glory II tactical battle game. You want the Field of Glory: Empires forum -
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=534

Thanks.

[Jorgito78]

Minor addition (I think) suggestion:
Ability to select "Pot Luck" allies, as it is now on armies, when creating Custom or MP battles. Right now, selecting "Pot luck" on the army lists it means they won't have allies.