Some Questions.

[jamespcrowley]

Having had the game for a few days now, I have been coming to grips with the rules and have been tickering with the editor as well as playing a few battles.

My overall impression is that this is an excellent, easy to learn and play game with a fair amount of hidden depth. However, there appears to be some limitations as to the types of battle that it can be used to recreate and there are some niggles which are hard to ignore.

I have been attempting to create some low complexity battles involving semi-static defence i.e. defending a hill-top position. I have set the defending commanders aggression level to timid but this seem to have nil effect; the defenders just charge downhill towards the enemy. It seems you cannot create such a scenario type? And what does that Commanders aggresion level setting do exactly?

Also, and perhaps a little more worrying, is the fact that missle weapons seem to be able to fire right through intervening hills and woods of any height. This doesn't seem right.

It also struck me that units moving and fighting uphill, as well as being disadvantaged in combat (which they are), should also become fatigued. Perhaps fatigue could or should be an element that is tracked every time units move or fight.

Having played several battles, I am now also convinced that out-of-command units are not disadvantaged enough; as per the discussion in another thread.

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks for the feedback. The AI has been developed to play open battles so as you say it wont defend positions at the moment. This is something we'll look at for the future but probably is a little further down the line.

Hill tops should be blocking line of fire if you are not near the crest - I need Keith to say exactly how it works. Forests were not intended to block line of fire but make targets harder to hurt when in them. We can look at changing the behaviour of these thigns but I think this is how they work at the moment.

Fatigue is something we deliberately left out for now. It is not part of the tabletop game. It could be added but it means diverging from the tabletop and its an important design decision we need to make.

Out of command has been discussed and is on our target list but not sure when or how we'll get to resolving that one.

[JayRaider]

Having played several battles, I am now also convinced that out-of-command units are not disadvantaged enough; as per the discussion in another thread.

I have to disagree with you on this point.
I'm finding that keeping units in command range can be essential to victory.
Are you referring to all units or just skirmishers?

[jamespcrowley]

Thanks for the feedback. The AI has been developed to play open battles so as you say it wont defend positions at the moment. This is something we'll look at for the future but probably is a little further down the line.

Hill tops should be blocking line of fire if you are not near the crest - I need Keith to say exactly how it works. Forests were not intended to block line of fire but make targets harder to hurt when in them. We can look at changing the behaviour of these thigns but I think this is how they work at the moment.

Fatigue is something we deliberately left out for now. It is not part of the tabletop game. It could be added but it means diverging from the tabletop and its an important design decision we need to make.

Out of command has been discussed and is on our target list but not sure when or how we'll get to resolving that one.

And thank you for the quick reply; I appreciate that you are taking these comments in the spirit that they are intended - to make an even better game.

With regards to missile fire it is currently possible to fire - say with a slinger unit - from level 0, over a level 2 hill and target a unit on the other side at level 0. Logic, well my logic anyway, thinks that really should be impossible. I really don't think that there was any controlled indirect fire systems in place at the tactical level in ancient times (was there?)

If you now cover the above hill/ridge with woods you get the following:
The slinger has a 25% chance against the unit in the open on the other side of the hill at level 0 and an 11% chance against a similar unit in the woods on the other side of the hill at level 1. Again my logic rails against this.

I can understand, and agree with, woods providing cover for units in them but this should only apply to the first hex in the line of fire. Further, or deeper, woods hexes should be immune from missile fire. Units on the other side of woods should be treated as being behind hills and not subject to indirect fire.

As for fatigue not being part of the TT game well, my understanding is that the PC game has already departed from the TT in many ways already. I play a fair bit of tabletop (not FoG) and book keeping needs to be minimised for ease of play. The great thing about PC games is that there can be a lot of complex calculation and bookkeeping without it getting in the way of play; so having things in the PC version that are not in the TT version can make perfect sense, if they add to the experience.

[jamespcrowley]

Having played several battles, I am now also convinced that out-of-command units are not disadvantaged enough; as per the discussion in another thread.

I have to disagree with you on this point.
I'm finding that keeping units in command range can be essential to victory.
Are you referring to all units or just skirmishers?

All units really, but particularly those with the biggest movement allowances. Cavalry and light units in particular can move around with impunity, in or out of C&C. If that were the case historically, it would have made sense for armies to have been comprised largely of such units - which they weren't. The current level of control is more akin to modern warfare than ancient warfare.

I still like Ian's suggestion of a form of randomised movement reduction for units out of C&C.

[keithmartinsmith]

In the early test version battlegroups out of command range had a high risk of obeying any orders but we could not get to a system that was out of command range. The LH/LF issue of going around your lines is to some extent a failure of generalship. Maintain a line and no one gets into your rear. Keith