Field of Glory patch v1.2.8 Now Available!

[IainMcNeil]

Tom, why do you think we should be providing scenarios for free? We do when we can but you seem to be suggesting we owe you scenarios? No need to say thanks for all the hard work

[gabeeg]

I beta tested 1.2.8 and have just run a game with the 1.2.8 release. This is a very good update, a general improvement to a great game. ....and it installs fine now on the Matrix edition Thanks!

[grumblefish]

Always love a new patch! Thanks! Haven't had a chance to test out the features yet because I'm going to finish my old battles before starting new ones, but I like the idea of double move and all that rah.

Tom, why do you think we should be providing scenarios for free?

I would expect the developer of the game to submit new scenarios and not to rely on the users as there were also not too many SoA scenarios in the initial release. Just my opinion.

but at any rate I don't like the medieval time period as much as the ancient, so for all I care you could totally stop supporting SoA and dedicate yourselves wholly to painting new ancient miniatures so I can have a line of hoplites with hundreds of different shield patterns.

EDIT: Oh yeh I wanted to say thanks again for that amazing little Slitherine Tray Tool that tells me whenever a turn is ready. It is so incredibly helpful and convenient that I cannot emphasise how happy I am that it was made. I never have to waste time loading FoG up just to check the server and find nothing is ready; now I just have the tray tool load on a startup, and when it blinks I take 10 minutes to respond, and then return to my work. Amazing; I would strongly suggest packaging it with the game in the future, because in time it might slip off the front page or not be noticed by newbies, who would miss out on what I think is opossibly my favourite addition to the original state of FoG, besides maybe the DAG.

[Morbio]

5. In MP - the results screen is confusing. In mine it said I had 7 results (in brackets), but there were far more listed on the screen.
6. In MP - the results screen is confusing. Some results are listed in bold some not. Do they represent won and lost games. This is possibly so, I seem to remember that the games I won were the ones not in bold, but I could be wrong.

I echo point 5. Can someone explain the difference in the numbers?

Regarding point 6, the bold doesn't represent games won... I know this because some of the games I won are not bold. I can't fathom what it is trying to show - can anyone explain?

Thank you to Slitherine for all the work in creating this update. I'll start playing now and I'm sure I'll be back with some comments

[TheGrayMouser]

· Change: Logic: The point at which the game can end because of victory conditions is now after the end phase events have happened, not before.


This is a big change, just had a battle and went over my break point level by 3-4 points , usually at that stage I scan the map for ways to see if i can frag/rout enough enemy units to see if I can pull a draw... Wasnt really close so hit end turn and instead of ending, my units started to rally, to the point where i was even... One more rally and would have been back in the game! will realy change how one plays the last turn, as it might not be the last one after all!

[pomakli]

Hi Ian!

It works! Thanks for all the effort!

[TomBombadil711]

Tom, why do you think we should be providing scenarios for free? We do when we can but you seem to be suggesting we owe you scenarios? No need to say thanks for all the hard work

Sorry Iain, it was not meant to offend you or anyone at Slitherine. You do not owe anything.

Thanks for your hard work. You made a great game!

[Scutarii]

Again i say the same, THIS IS A PC GAME, TOTALLY DIFERENT TO TT GAME and many things that works in TT game dont do it in PC game for example anarchy charges that finally need to change because in pc game break it, and again i say that i buy the pc game not the TT game and i want see PC game in his own path of evolution, for me the new 300 strength is stupid because now in PC game i see in RoR battles between 10.000 soldiers armies and this is a piece of s***, nobody playing PC game has problems with the actual scale only say (as me) that a good idea could be have 2 different armies one with the 1500-1000-500 scale and other with 500-250-150 for example to play at legion scale and for SoA reduce the scale but now you do the worst change, all units 300 ... WTF IS THIS???? we cant edit army list and now hey, 300 for all.... totally unhistorical and break the game sensation i think that before do this changes is better ask to PC players not to TT because PC game isnt the TT game

In general i like the new patc, are features that dont like and i dont use but i think that TT game is killing PC game because you cant base your game evolition in a game that only have the same name as yours.

PD: if numbers dont have any impact in the game leave players decide what scale want they because i play now only DAG battles and dont like the new scale, dont have impact in the game but is dont have impact DONT TOUCH IT!!! expect that finally return to the classic numbers for RoR and IF and for SoA made his own scale... dawn, is difficult have in every army pack a different scale and not this patetic 300 scale???.

[hidde]

Just home from work. To tired to check.
The ability to set evade stance for LT isn't in this time, right?
Will come in later patch?

[IainMcNeil]

Its ok - we don't expect thanks, just sometimes it gets a bit frustrating when we put a lot of work in for free effetively and someone says "I'm disappointed I didn't get X". Just enjoy the game... and buy the expansions

We have some cool new stuff coming soon that is top secret which we think will be huge. It's going in to closed beta very soon.

[rbodleyscott]

In general i like the new patc, are features that dont like and i dont use but i think that TT game is killing PC game because you cant base your game evolition in a game that only have the same name as yours.

It doesn't just have the same name, it has the same internal combat mechanisms. And as these are based on each "base" having approximately the same number of men, reporting them as having hugely different numbers of men just makes the results seem wrong - when they are working as intended. Likewise the lists are based on each "base" having roughly the same number of men, the proportions are wrong if "bases" represent different numbers of men.

So essentially, you want the entire internal system to be changed, including the core combat mechanisms and all the army lists.

It seems likely that this won't happen. The issues you don't like are fundamental to the game design.

So if you like the game, I suggest that you just ignore your niggles about reported troop numbers - after all the game plays exactly the same whatever the reported numbers.

[Scutarii]

Dont understand me bad but not all features in a patch are good stuff, for example you need change in 1.2.8 anarchy charges becuase in TT game it works but in PC game dont do it, i dont understand why today you continue using TT games as a "Bible" for PC game when PC game has a different movement system (hexagons) and different unit scale (3-4 units in PC form a unit in TT game). For the unit number of soldiers... 300 could be a good number for SoA (but need different numbers per unit type) but for RoR and IF is to small and for example see a macedonian army of 500 points changing from 27.000 HF, 6.000 MF, 4.000 HH and 6.000 Lsoldiers to 5.400 HF, 1.800 MF, 1.200 HH and 3.600 Lsoldiers is




because now more than 1/3 of the army are formed by Lsoldiers and dont talk about how now you can see 5 dead soldiers in a unit and you need asume that as a disaster

Really, to have this "300" feature i prefer dont change the old numbers.

I preordered IF and like FoG serie but i buy and i like PC GAME not TT GAME, if PC game isnt a 100% port of TT game is better treat PC game as an independent entity with his own rules, it could be based on TT game but isnt the same.

PD: the only way to see a good game become a superbgame is with a critical point of view and a trial and error method but doing it where is necessary.



EDIT: dont understand me bad, i say that PC game need improvements based in HIS reality not in TT because we can see in every patch things like the change in anarchy charges that was a disaster in PC, i dont say that they change all thing that are like in TT game but i want see PC game be independent of TT game in his evolution and for soldiers numbers... I DONT LIKE IT, is a bad change that break the game feeling for me, why??? read the post, if you want a smaller scale in units add this as bonus in army list but dont break the original numbers.

[Castel1x1]

Its ok - we don't expect thanks, just sometimes it gets a bit frustrating when we put a lot of work in for free effetively and someone says "I'm disappointed I didn't get X". Just enjoy the game... and buy the expansions

Well, when i see how you're bitching and whining about just a little question (from a paying costumer) i really start to wonder why we should buy the expansions.

You don't expect thanks ? That's pretty good cause with this kind of attitude you're not about to get any.

[IainMcNeil]

The point I was making is that we work really hard to create these updates which are free. It can be quite demoralising for the team when the reaction to something that has been worked on for weeks, with late nights and lost sleep, is "That's it?". If we were charging a subscription service you'd have every right to expect these updates, but we don't because we know you guys don't like this type of thing. No offence is intended, so apologies if any was caused!

Try and look at it from our point of view

[Examinondas]

I think I was the first that spotted the change in the unit strengths, back in the beta a few weeks ago. I don't think this change was necessary and don't like it, but have come to accept it (specially because I know how to fix it in my single player games )

Something that I don't understand about the new strengths is why now 300 skirmishers in open order occupy the same space as 300 heavy foot in close order. I would be grateful if a dev could explain that

[Gersen]

Something that I don't understand about the new strengths is why now 300 skirmishers in open order occupy the same space as 300 heavy foot in close order. I would be grateful if a dev could explain that

Or 300 Heavy Cavalry for that matter.

Still I am not seeing 300 in any of my games. I am also surprised that few of my other issues have been picked up by others. Have I installed wrong?

[Scutarii]

And why we accept the change in soldier numbers??? i dont accept the change in anarchy charges and many people do the same and finally they change it (dont change drilled units but well, not allways is possible) and for this is the same, for me breaks the game feeling specially when i read this "· Change: Historical strengths to 300 for most troop types. " is historical see a macedonian army with the composition that i describe before??? for SoA maybe is historical (not all because knights units were smaller than infantry and light units) but for RoR no and if we talk about historical they need do special numbers per every army unit not give a generic number for a unit type (the old numbers werent perfect but at least were less ridiculous than the new 300 for all) but old numbers were fine.

I dont think that change the number of soldiers is a critical feature but if they change then at least do it well not this botched job with the excuse of "is like in TT game"

PD: is an interesting point, why 300 Lsoldiers in open order occpy as 300 heavy Knights or 300 HF soldiers... you need less space to have heavy units because their strength is in the close order and this explain the loses when are attacked by lights in range attacks.

[IainMcNeil]

If you see version 1.2.8 on the main menu you have the rigth update.

Pre-loaded means you can fight against these army packs but do not have them yet.

Can you send screenshots of the MP issues? I'm not sure exactly what you are seeing.

[davouthojo]

I really like double moves - they are a great addition. It may not be realistic, but I love the extra strategic options and decisions it creates.

I thank and appreciate all the hard work and passion from Slitherine developers. However, they are getting paid for what they do aswell. I'd like to reserve my biggest thanks for the people working for free - especially all the scenario-makers who have worked for free to contribute to our enjoyment - can I single out JMS, PM, MA, MS and DC?

[As an aside suggestion to Slitherine, I was recently reading about how companies can support passionate communities. One of the ways was to provide recognition and credit to leading members. You are doing a good job with initials in scenarios, listing number of posts etc. There is further to go - how about forum badges for campaign organisers, the ability to award "Panther League 1 Winner 2010" badges to other members if you run leagues/cups/campaigns, votes on best scenario - I know this takes investment and time for slitherine, but I could provide the difference between an online franchise that lasts 20 years and one that fizzles in 2. You guys are smart enough to realise that the game is a full package, on some things (patches, forum support) you make no income, on other parts of the package (expansions) you reap the reward]

All feedback, even negative is a gift. the previous poster was spot on when he says that any customer who bought SOA to play historical battles will currently be disappointed.

I will put my money where my mouth is and research a SOA battle and submit it to Slitherine to contribute to plugging this gap.

[Gersen]

If you see version 1.2.8 on the main menu you have the rigth update.

Pre-loaded means you can fight against these army packs but do not have them yet.

Can you send screenshots of the MP issues? I'm not sure exactly what you are seeing.

I see 1.2.8

Here is the screenie. It says that I have 7 results on the left, but as you can see, there are bunch more, and some are in bold (coincidentally 7). What does the bold indicate?