Battle Balance

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft

Post Reply
JocaRamiro
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:19 pm

Battle Balance

Post by JocaRamiro »

Within the mulitplayer games, how do people feel about the game balance?

I am feeling a persistant - but not super strong - northern bias. That is, the barbarians seem stronger than I expect, and the Carthegenians weaker. In particular, the African infanty compared to the legion.

Also, what is up with Lake Trasemene. This seems much easier for the Romans that it should.
batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel »

The balance between the different types of troops in the PC version is pretty much the same as in the TT rules with the minor difference that on the TT the actual sizes of BGs is an important element in how they compare for effectiveness.

The accuracy and balance of individual scenarios is a different question and also a matter for a amount of subjective judgement. It is difficult to reproduce the actual outcome in the Lake Trasimene scenario. Probably biggest issue there is the absence of a fog of war element so it is easier for the Romans to respond intelligently to the situation without the element of surprise that presumably existed in the historical battle. It might help if the PC version provided some provision for units in ambush as the TT rules do. Of course that would also need to be coupled with allowing non-historical deployment for the Carthaginians to be effective for re-playability of the scenario.

Chris
Xiccarph
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:05 am

Post by Xiccarph »

In regard to Lake Trasemene, I think perhaps the quality level of the Romans should be reduced some degree to reflect the disorder and confusion caused by them being caught in a line of march and not deployed for battle and taken by surprise, as opposed to their foes who were prepared and psyched for the encounter. Just my humble opinion. :wink:
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet »

Don't need to reduce quality, just start some of the foot seeing enemy to the flank as Disrupted so they fight impaired or need to be cautious and rally. The disrupt penalty is reasonable for the Impact Foot.
IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13558
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil »

It might be nice to be able to start a scenario with a unit Disrupted or Fragmented. You coudl start teh whoel Roman army Disrupted to simulate surpriose and see if they can recover soon enough to deal with the attack.
deeter
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by deeter »

One thing that helps the Romans is the lake itself. When they route they run to the lake's edge and just stand there making a big roadblock for the Punics.

Deeter
deadtorius
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Posts: 5290
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Post by deadtorius »

Yes getting by the Roman beach bathers is somewhat of a bother. If you could artificially tell the game the waters edge is the map edge and the Romans would just wade in and drown themselves it would help with the clutter of routers
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”