Bug 1.1.2 - troops behind lights can now be shot at.

[Ironclad]

In multiplayer games, started prior to 1.1.2, shooters are able to target both the enemy light screen and the other troops behind them. So heavy troops are no longer screened from missile fire. I don't know if this just applies to pre-patch games or applies in new games when FOG off is chosen.

I will have to stop playing existing games until this is fixed.

[kilroy1]

In multiplayer games, started prior to 1.1.2, shooters are able to target both the enemy light screen and the other troops behind them. So heavy troops are no longer screened from missile fire. I don't know if this just applies to pre-patch games or applies in new games when FOG off is chosen.

I will have to stop playing existing games until this is fixed.

I found this in the help file:

"Intervening enemy battlegroups, other than light foot block line of sight."

and

"All intervening battlegroups block line of sight."

It is confusing.

kilroy

[keithmartinsmith]

This a bug in 112 and is already fixed for 113. This is a case of not seeing the woods for the trees here. We tested zillions of things for 112 and it just never occured to any of us this could happen so it never made it onto the test list. My error. Keith

[Paisley]

Surely if the tester played a single game through such things would become obvious.

[Blathergut]

Will fixing it so LF can shield troops behind have to wait until Storm of Arrows? (Any remote idea on time?)

It really reduces the effectiveness of LF immensely.

[Ironclad]

I'm sure it won't - hope not anyway as I've got several games on hold pending the fix.

[deeter]

Don't know how far off 113 is, but having just done a few turns of multi-player with this issue, I humbly request a hot fix and soon! I and (I assume) many others are getting shot to pieces despite having invested in a skirmisher screen. At this point, I can't see playing another move in any of my games until this is addressed. If you're in a game with me and I don't respond for awhile, this is why.

Deeter

[IainMcNeil]

"Surely if the tester played a single game through such things would become obvious."

Obviously not as it was not spotted

[Ironclad]

Strange I have just noticed the bug appear in a FOW on game - the only one I have tried so far. It didn't seem to be present earlier in the game which led me to assume it was only occurring in FOW off ones and games started before the patch arrived. That makes the fix even more urgent, if there are no games immune from it.

[batesmotel]

"Surely if the tester played a single game through such things would become obvious."

Obviously not as it was not spotted

Hi Iain,

Do the testers actually try to play through complete games when testing a new patch or do you have have a standard set of shorter test cases that you use. Things like the the fact that LF no longer block missile fire at units behind them or the crashes due to routing units at the edge of the board would seem to be issues that would come up fairly quickly in full length games but might not if you are just running shorter test cases when testing a new patch. Playing through a few complete games would probably be good to include as a sanity test in your test suite along with whatever specific test cases you use in testing a new patch. As a software engineer I know how test suites tend to be put together in the world of commercial software but don't have any real idea of what the standard procedures are for testing for games.

Chris

[keithmartinsmith]

When testers for changes if you change 'A' you usually look at all the related aspects and test that as in B, C , D, E. Some times and without intention by changing A you break Z but Z was never on the test list. Playing whole games through is close to pointless as testers having played 100+ games really cannot see the woods for the trees. This is the case even when we use groups of volunteer testers. Often the obvious just gets overlooked.

A good recent example would be the Sony Corporation getting the leap year wrong causing chaos for users of their play stations. No matter how hard we try and how much we test, some times, we will miss the obvious.

The only alternative is to freeze development. Say this is it, this is the game, no more changes. For Field of Glory I hope that we can continue to add to and improve the game engine for everyone, but a strategy of continuous improvement means change and change means errors.

Keith

[deeter]

Keith,

Any chance of a hot fix for this? I getting shot when I shouldn't.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Keith,

Any chance of a hot fix for this? I getting shot when I shouldn't.

Deeter

Why not just ask your oppenent to play w a "house rule" ie no shooting thru lights ? Not perfect but much easier to do for this bug than convulted and complex house rules i have seen in other games...

[deeter]

Makes sense. I'll do that in my next games.

Deeter

[76mm]

I've noticed this too and thought it was a feature, not a bug--I would think it more realistic for archers and slingers to be able to fire over scattered formations of light troops.

And I dont' understand the argument about this making LF much less effective--I think it makes them more effective, because they can fire at the main line and can focus their attention more easily on single targets rather than plinging away at exposed enemy archers. The only thing is that you need more javelins or similar troops among your archers and slingers to chase away the enemy archers, etc. so that they are out of range, rather than have their LOS blocked. My concern would be that this makes LF TOO effective, not less effective. But since most of my armies have lots of LF, I don't mind that much...

[keyth]

I've noticed this too and thought it was a feature, not a bug--I would think it more realistic for archers and slingers to be able to fire over scattered formations of light troops.

And I dont' understand the argument about this making LF much less effective--I think it makes them more effective, because they can fire at the main line and can focus their attention more easily on single targets rather than plinging away at exposed enemy archers. The only thing is that you need more javelins or similar troops among your archers and slingers to chase away the enemy archers, etc. so that they are out of range, rather than have their LOS blocked. My concern would be that this makes LF TOO effective, not less effective. But since most of my armies have lots of LF, I don't mind that much...

I was testing 600 points of Ptolemaics against a Bosporan AI force... there were three ranks of Bosporan LF shooting my pikemen through my rank of LF... it sucked, a lot So it is a double-edged sword, making LF much more effective at disrupting HF but useless at 'real' skirmishing and protecting your main battle line.

[batesmotel]

I've noticed this too and thought it was a feature, not a bug--I would think it more realistic for archers and slingers to be able to fire over scattered formations of light troops.

And I dont' understand the argument about this making LF much less effective--I think it makes them more effective, because they can fire at the main line and can focus their attention more easily on single targets rather than plinging away at exposed enemy archers. The only thing is that you need more javelins or similar troops among your archers and slingers to chase away the enemy archers, etc. so that they are out of range, rather than have their LOS blocked. My concern would be that this makes LF TOO effective, not less effective. But since most of my armies have lots of LF, I don't mind that much...

I was testing 600 points of Ptolemaics against a Bosporan AI force... there were three ranks of Bosporan LF shooting my pikemen through my rank of LF... it sucked, a lot So it is a double-edged sword, making LF much more effective at disrupting HF but useless at 'real' skirmishing and protecting your main battle line.

This is already a problem with missile fire in the rules because you can get most of the effect of firing troops in multiple ranks through proper use of sequencing and firing BGs that are further away first than then moving ones in front of them that fire in turn. This is like firing by extraction or firing by introduction in pike and shot rules but completely inappropriate for the ancient/medieval period.

If it is possible to fire through LF, the right way to use them to screen is just to push them far enough out in front of your main line that opposing skirmishers cannot get within range of the main line. This changes the way you use skirmishers a bit but I haven't decided if it makes how they work in the game better or worse overall. Firing through LF is inconsistent with the TT rules so probably better to fix it for compatibility.

Chris

[deeter]

The problem with pushing your skirmish line too far forward is the ahistoric rope-a-dope routine where you get attacked by LF you don't evad from only to be hit with HF and destroyed. When using velites and such, I'm afraid to send them more than two hexes away from the battle line and that won't keep archers out of range.

Deeter

[rbodleyscott]

The problem with pushing your skirmish line too far forward is the ahistoric rope-a-dope routine where you get attacked by LF you don't evad from only to be hit with HF and destroyed. When using velites and such, I'm afraid to send them more than two hexes away from the battle line and that won't keep archers out of range.

Deeter

On the other hand, some people find skirmishers in FOG TT just a bit too hard to pin down.

Given the various advantages that skirmishers have in FOG PC that they don't have in FOG TT (e.g. firing by introduction/extraduction to super-concentrate fire) I think the fact that they can be caught by combined arms forces is actually quite a good thing once you become accustomed to it.

I am not convinced that it is in fact unrealistic in its overall effect.

For example, Ottoman akinjis (LH) suffered heavy losses historically when skirmishing vs Christian knights- how if the knights couldn't ever catch them?

[deeter]

I much prefer the TT option to stand or run and risk being caught. On the PC, you have no options except to hide superior skirmishers which, I doubt, is how they were used.

Deeter