Sandbox Campaign suggestions

[PolishDragoon]

Field of Glory 2 is a game which I love the most, next to some WW2 wargames. I have played many, many hours in FOG 2 and the only one thing which I dream to add is some (maybe minimal) operational aspects of sandbox campaign. In current state we have one or two decision between battles and I would love to see it enriched. Not necessary like in case of Pike and Shot Campaigns (whole operational map added), but maybe a more developped decision tree between battles or option of leader customization (like in RPG games) would be a wonderful experience.

Thanks for your feedback.

Can you be more specific about what you would like to see? (Excluding the possibility of a map)

Well, I thought about more decisions which player has to choose between battles, not only two. And I thought about aspect similar to Steel Panthers, where leaders had some statistics which had an influence on their army's performance.

[slithpile]

My issue with Campaign Maps and higher level strategic gameplay is this. The goal of strategy is to match your strength against their weakness. If you do strategy right, you are specifically avoiding fair fights.

But Tactical Games like Field of Glory are at their best when the two sides are evenly matched.

So if you mix Strategy and Tactics in one game, you can either make the Strategy consequential and fun, or you can make the Tactics consequential and fun. You can't have both. Thats my problem with games like Total War.

Thats why I love the Field of Glory 2 campaign mode so much. It keeps the focus firmly on the excellent tactical action, while providing just enough carryover between battles to paint a story and make you care about the units.

Any new Campaign Mode for future games needs to delicately walk that line.

[rbodleyscott]

My issue with Campaign Maps and higher level strategic gameplay is this. The goal of strategy is to match your strength against their weakness. If you do strategy right, you are specifically avoiding fair fights.

But Tactical Games like Field of Glory are at their best when the two sides are evenly matched.

So if you mix Strategy and Tactics in one game, you can either make the Strategy consequential and fun, or you can make the Tactics consequential and fun. You can't have both. Thats my problem with games like Total War.

Thats why I love the Field of Glory 2 campaign mode so much. It keeps the focus firmly on the excellent tactical action, while providing just enough carryover between battles to paint a story and make you care about the units.

Any new Campaign Mode for future games needs to delicately walk that line.

Agreed.

We do have some thoughts on how to achieve this.

[ilpars]

My issue with Campaign Maps and higher level strategic gameplay is this. The goal of strategy is to match your strength against their weakness. If you do strategy right, you are specifically avoiding fair fights.

But Tactical Games like Field of Glory are at their best when the two sides are evenly matched.

So if you mix Strategy and Tactics in one game, you can either make the Strategy consequential and fun, or you can make the Tactics consequential and fun. You can't have both. Thats my problem with games like Total War.

Thats why I love the Field of Glory 2 campaign mode so much. It keeps the focus firmly on the excellent tactical action, while providing just enough carryover between battles to paint a story and make you care about the units.

Any new Campaign Mode for future games needs to delicately walk that line.

Agreed.

We do have some thoughts on how to achieve this.

I love combining higher level strategy gameplay with tactical battles. If the strategy game have the option to avoid battles (maybe with some casualty due to cavalry pursuit) unfair battles will not be a big proplem. Historically in most battles either both sides thought they would win the battle or the weaker side do not or can not avoid battle because of defending an important streategical position or ambushed or trapped. Also having missions like ambush, fighting withdrawal or desperate last stand might be interesting and fun.

Also I love to see naval battles and sieges in FOG format. I have not yet see a historically accurate siege gameplay in any game.

[rbodleyscott]

My issue with Campaign Maps and higher level strategic gameplay is this. The goal of strategy is to match your strength against their weakness. If you do strategy right, you are specifically avoiding fair fights.

But Tactical Games like Field of Glory are at their best when the two sides are evenly matched.

So if you mix Strategy and Tactics in one game, you can either make the Strategy consequential and fun, or you can make the Tactics consequential and fun. You can't have both. Thats my problem with games like Total War.

Thats why I love the Field of Glory 2 campaign mode so much. It keeps the focus firmly on the excellent tactical action, while providing just enough carryover between battles to paint a story and make you care about the units.

Any new Campaign Mode for future games needs to delicately walk that line.

Agreed.

We do have some thoughts on how to achieve this.

I love combining higher level strategy gameplay with tactical battles. If the strategy game have the option to avoid battles (maybe with some casualty due to cavalry pursuit) unfair battles will not be a big proplem.

We did that in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, but people complained that the AI kept retreating from their mega-armies. (And vice versa, but they did not complain about that!)

It is a bit of a no-win situation for game designers, if the battles are to be tactically fun.

[Athos1660]

We did that in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, but people complained that the AI kept retreating from their mega-armies. (And vice versa, but they did not complain about that!)

It is a bit of a no-win situation for game designers, if the battles are to be tactically fun.

To make it work, It would suffice if retreating weren't as automatic as it is currently in these games.
This is the systematic aspect of retreating that is exasperating (and most likely not that historical : there's what one want and what one can).
I've never seen an IA not retreating when odds were against it (or even facing quite fair fights).

In the TT wargame The wars of the Sun King 1648-1713 (2 players, operational-level, using a map with areas), to retreat to an adjacent zone, the defender has to pass an initiative test, rolling 1D6 and adding the difference (Strategic capacity of the Defender's General - Strategic capacity of the Attacker's General). This result must be greater than 2.
(0 ≤ Strategic capacity ≤ 3, unless I am mistaken)
That said, in this game, one has to get a much much bigger army than his opponent to get a real advantage.


It shouldn't be automatic in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, both for the IA and the player. Retreating could be made possible say 66% of the time (or less).

It is a bit of a no-win situation for game designers, if the battles are to be tactically fun.

Indeed.

For such non-tactical battles (where one side is much better than the other) that are operational victories and don't represent all the battles to be played (if you play small opponents, that means there are also bigger enemy armies), there could be an auto-resolve button ?

[Lysimachos]

We did that in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, but people complained that the AI kept retreating from their mega-armies. (And vice versa, but they did not complain about that!)

It is a bit of a no-win situation for game designers, if the battles are to be tactically fun.

To say the truth I find that the way campaigns have been recreated in Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai is the best ever solution it was possible to envisage and I would so much like that they could be implemented also in FoG and Medieval!

[Athos1660]

I like the Sandbox Campaign in the FoG2 series. It allows events to happen.

In fact, maybe there could more storytelling/events/reason to fight in these Campagns.

[Cronos09]

...
It shouldn't be automatic in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, both for the IA and the player. Retreating could be made possible say 66% of the time (or less).
...

I think, if you add to the file CampaignTools.bsf in the corresponding condition || (FXRand(0,99) < 34) like this

Code: Select all

if (((army1Strength <= comparator) && (proportionFoot >= 33)) || (FXRand(0,99) < 34)) // Defender will set up defensive position.

then the retreating will occur with a probability of 66 percent.

[Karvon]

It would be nice if you could select the ally for the enemy which might pop up, rather than generating a random one when a 3rd party attacks.

Karvon

[Athos1660]

...
It shouldn't be automatic in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, both for the IA and the player. Retreating could be made possible say 66% of the time (or less).
...

I think, if you add to the file CampaignTools.bsf in the corresponding condition || (FXRand(0,99) < 34) like this

Code: Select all

if (((army1Strength <= comparator) && (proportionFoot >= 33)) || (FXRand(0,99) < 34)) // Defender will set up defensive position.

then the retreating will occur with a probability of 66 percent.

Thx. I will try it this WE.