Vertical white lines + unit strengths in 1.2.7

[Examinondas]

I thought the vertical-white-lines-between-hexes-showing-at-some-zoom-levels bug had been fixed, but it's present in the 1.2.7 beta:


Also, I have noticed that all types of BGs (except chariots, elephants and artillery) have now a unit strength of 300. I find it very odd since in a recent poll (viewtopic.php?t=16785) 40% of us voted no to changes in the unit strengths. Only a 22% voted to drop the unit numbers (which is actually what has been done by setting all BGs to 300). Well, at least we can make things right in the scenario editor...

[keithmartinsmith]

The main TT designer was in favour of the change and as it can be easily modified in the scenario editor, why not? Its an artifical number as the game engine counts down as a percentage from the starting strength.

There has been no changes to the graphics engine in 1.2.7 so is probably a quirk of the zoom level/video card/screen resolution. We will look at this though.

Thanks
Keith

[TheGrayMouser]

The main TT designer was in favour of the change and as it can be easily modified in the scenario editor, why not? Its an artifical number as the game engine counts down as a percentage from the starting strength.

There has been no changes to the graphics engine in 1.2.7 so is probably a quirk of the zoom level/video card/screen resolution. We will look at this though.

Thanks
Keith

Yuk, why not leave it alone? I liked the flavour of the different size units....

If it is to be changed you might as well drop all pretences and make it 100 for all units.....

[Ironclad]

The main TT designer was in favour of the change and as it can be easily modified in the scenario editor, why not? Its an artifical number as the game engine counts down as a percentage from the starting strength.

There has been no changes to the graphics engine in 1.2.7 so is probably a quirk of the zoom level/video card/screen resolution. We will look at this though.

Thanks
Keith

Yuk, why not leave it alone? I liked the flavour of the different size units....

If it is to be changed you might as well drop all pretences and make it 100 for all units.....

I don't like the idea of a common 300 strength at all. If it makes no difference why not keep the current 500/1000/1500 strengths which we are all familiar with and which do give a genuine flavour of the higher troop numbers that would be attached to heavier as compared to light units.

There are other things that may need changing and this is not one of them.

[batesmotel]

The main TT designer was in favour of the change and as it can be easily modified in the scenario editor, why not? Its an artifical number as the game engine counts down as a percentage from the starting strength.

There has been no changes to the graphics engine in 1.2.7 so is probably a quirk of the zoom level/video card/screen resolution. We will look at this though.

Thanks
Keith

Yuk, why not leave it alone? I liked the flavour of the different size units....

If it is to be changed you might as well drop all pretences and make it 100 for all units.....

I don't like the idea of a common 300 strength at all. If it makes no difference why not keep the current 500/1000/1500 strengths which we are all familiar with and which do give a genuine flavour of the higher troop numbers that would be attached to heavier as compared to light units.

There are other things that may need changing and this is not one of them.

The problem with the original numbers is that they reflect neither the historical combat effectiveness of the BGs they represent nor are they consistent with the missile ranges used in the game compared with the historical frontages used by these troops types. The original combat system adopted with little modification from the TT is based on the assumption that each stand represents roughly the same number of troops. The missile ranges use in FoG PC lead to one hex in FoG PC being roughly the equivalent of one stand's frontage in the TT rules so it seemed most reasonable to use a troop scale of 300 for FoG PC BGs since this is roughly the equivalent of the nominal TT scale.

The original 500/1000/1500 numbers were both unrealistic and lead to the continuous debates about how can 500 poorly armed slingers kill many times their number of heavily armed troops. If you want arbitrary flavor in the game,
maybe 1500 should be changed to strawberry 1000 to chocolate and 500 to vanilla?

Chris

[MesaDon]

Is there an option to switch between the actual unit strenght from the number to a percentage of remaining strenght? I know that you can see the immediate loses as a percentage but I haven't seen the remainder after each battle that way. If not maybe that would solove the problem by allowing each player to choose the way they want it represented.

Clearification: I know taht it shows the percentage but with the number of men left (confusing on occasion). I should have said either one (men left) or the other (percentage) or both (?).

[Examinondas]

The original 500/1000/1500 numbers [...] lead to the continuous debates about how can 500 poorly armed slingers kill many times their number of heavily armed troops.

Before 1.2.7, people could be directed to use the show-losses-as-percentages option to solve that problem, and roughly get the same result as in 1.2.7. (On the contrary, we can't do anything in 1.2.7 to get the pre-1.2.7 situation in DAG battles)

Besides, have you thought about how many times you will have to explain why in the game 300 LF slingers in skirmish order occupy the same space as 300 HF hoplites in phalanx formation? (Count this as the first)

Anyway, the poll showed that most people didn't like the idea of dropping the unit strengths, so whatever problems they had to understand the system, they preferred it to a no-numbers system (which is what we get with a 300 strength for all BGs)

If you want arbitrary flavor in the game, maybe 1500 should be changed to strawberry 1000 to chocolate and 500 to vanilla?

With the changes in 1.2.7, we only have vanilla, vanilla and vanilla. Not many flavours, isn't it?

There are other things that may need changing and this is not one of them.

Agreed.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think a problem is that this game is quite abstarct in may ways which I am fine with... Howver if you are going to take ONE aspect of it and attempt to make it more "concrete" without adding other concrete factors , then the flavour, supsension of disbelief etc are adversley effected..

I understand that the 300 men per unit would be more "inline" with the missle ranges but now each hex would really have to be considered only 30-50 meters wide. Units densinities would then really have to be better conisdered, unit stacking would be needed to be considered as well as interpenetrations......This is not going to happen... Also, what about the debate over how light foot can out run cavalry?
What Im getting at , taken as a whole, the abstract way the game mechanics work is just fine, its when you try to get specific on one point that , for me, starts making it a little silly...

[batesmotel]

I think a problem is that this game is quite abstarct in may ways which I am fine with... Howver if you are going to take ONE aspect of it and attempt to make it more "concrete" without adding other concrete factors , then the flavour, supsension of disbelief etc are adversley effected..

I understand that the 300 men per unit would be more "inline" with the missle ranges but now each hex would really have to be considered only 30-50 meters wide. Units densinities would then really have to be better conisdered, unit stacking would be needed to be considered as well as interpenetrations......This is not going to happen... Also, what about the debate over how light foot can out run cavalry?
What Im getting at , taken as a whole, the abstract way the game mechanics work is just fine, its when you try to get specific on one point that , for me, starts making it a little silly...

My preference would be to get rid of the BG strengths altogether. Failing that and given they have no effect on the game other than confusing players. setting them all to the same number seems a less misleading even if a bit less colorful. (Setting all units to 1000 woud be ok with me, too, but 300 was the numbered suggested by the TT rules author.)

Chris

[keithmartinsmith]

If you do like the battle group strengths just set your preference screen settings to percentages. Keith

[MesaDon]

If you do like the battle group strengths just set your preference screen settings to percentages. Keith

I do that and it shows the persentage lost but when you scroll over the unit it still gives the unit strenght along with the persentage left. I think some people would rather have the option of only showing the remaining percentage only wihtout any reference to unit strenght.

[Examinondas]

If you do like the battle group strengths just set your preference screen settings to percentages. Keith

Before 1.2.7, this option allowed unit-strength haters and supporters to play according to their preference. In 1.2.7 this option makes little difference (it just displays casualties as x out of 100 instead as of x out of 300), and only unit-strength haters can play according to their tastes.

Changing all unit strengths to 300 has in effect killed unit strengths in DAG battles. This doesn't improve the game, and was not requested by any majority of players. Could the devs please think again about this change?

[Ironclad]

If you do like the battle group strengths just set your preference screen settings to percentages. Keith

Before 1.2.7, this option allowed unit-strength haters and supporters to play according to their preference. In 1.2.7 this option makes little difference (it just displays casualties as x out of 100 instead as of x out of 300), and only unit-strength haters can play according to their tastes.

Changing all unit strengths to 300 has in effect killed unit strengths in DAG battles. This doesn't improve the game, and was not requested by any majority of players. Could the devs please think again about this change?

I hope the development team will rethink this one. I suspect the silent majority are more than happy with the current strength levels otherwise they would be complaining like mad.

Percentage losses don't appeal to everyone (including myself). An optional change would be an ideal compromise but I imagine that would not be workable or would involve more development time than this issue is worth. Even allowing for the exaggerated effect of firing, it would seem better on balance to keep things as they are.