Field of Glory patch v1.2.8 Now Available!

[Blathergut]

Have enjoyed the double moves just as they are! I think inspired leaders have finally come into their own.

[TheGrayMouser]

I agree with Ironclad in that double moves allows far too much lateral , ahistorical movement


I like Iains suggestion that maybe double moves will be tweked only to be allowed only for a units frontal arc

[Xiggy]

I have been trying out double moves in single player. It makes mounted troops incredibly mobile. It will make me have at least 3 generals. Where I have the CnC and a sub commander on 1 wing if I want to really have rapid movement. I will leave it to the dev's to decide if this is realistic. It is way to early to tell what this means.

Good thing the numidians are so weak, or you would the new killer army. It looks like the Bosporan all cav list may be even more powerful.

I personally prefer the 500/1000/1500 unit counts. Going to 300 for everything will change all unit types enormously. Now LH/LF have the same staying power as HF. Cat's having more relative HP is way overpowering. Part of the way you beat them was since they had only 1000 hp, you HF (1500 HP) could atttrit them if used correctly. Increasing their relative HP by 33 percent will make them very strong.


That change would make thing very different. If you have a sliding scale for ranegs then you missile troops will have to charge to contact to shoot. Just like the old DBA game. I am not sure I like that effect. I prefer range units to well shoot from a distance.

I expect the dev's to find a happy medium somewhere. The comstant 300 hp think can be hadles by where you break on casualties. HF at 40 percent, MF and cav at 60 and LF/LH at 75 or 80. Something like that, that makes the mathmatically equivalent to how it is now.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey Ziggy, the # of men per unit has no effect at all
Units take damage at a % based off their original nominal value so a 10% hit off a 300 or a 1000 size unit does the same proportianal damages.... I repeat, no effect at all!

[Xiggy]

Ok, but that percentage is based off of number of hp. Currently your casulty percentage is adjusted based on attacker strength 500, 1000, 1500, then reduced based on target strength if I am not mistaken. So, I guess there can be a light, medium/cav and HF based factor added in there. Or maybe I am confused on what I read about how all these factors work.

[Blathergut]

the game works just on %....so whether a pike BG has 300 or 1500...at 74% it takes a minus...doesn't matter at all the number of guys...everything is %

[Blathergut]

I think 300 per is fine....since the PC is more like individual bases....

[rbodleyscott]

Ok, but that percentage is based off of number of hp. Currently your casulty percentage is adjusted based on attacker strength 500, 1000, 1500, then reduced based on target strength if I am not mistaken.

You are mistaken. The internal game workings do not make any use whatsoever of the number of men in a unit - they work on % of a full strength unit.

This may seem odd, but it is because the game mechanisms are ported from the TT version, which uses bases rather than numbers of men. (With a few exceptions) each PC unit is equivalent to 4 TT bases.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the reported numbers of men are purely cosmetic and have no effect whatsoever on the internal combat calculations.

------------------------

300 men per unit is to scale with the missile ranges. In the TT game, each base is 250 men, so a 4-base unit would be 1,000 men, but the PC missile ranges are much longer than the TT missile ranges relative to the frontage of the units.

This does mean that Seleucid armies seem a bit small when you are looking at battles like Magnesia, but there were, of course smaller ancient battles and campaigns - such as the Seleucid wars against the Maccabees, and Arrian's order of battle against the Alans. In fact plenty of classical period battles had 10,000 to 15,000 men a side - but the larger battles obviously get more column inches.

What this means is that the shooting ranges in the PC game are more suitable for normal sized Medieval battles, and smaller Ancient battles.

Certainly the reported numbers can be scaled up to make Ancient battles seem larger, but really that would be an illusion, because the shooting ranges would then be vastly overscale.

All of these problems go away if a little "artistic licence" is accepted.

[Scutarii]

If is only a cosmetic feature DONT TOUCH IT or better, leave players select the scale they want use because with 300 you break RoR and IF scale and of course dont solve SoA problems because even witn 300 is a little high

Again i say the same, this is PC game, not TT game and not all features in TT game works in PC and change numbers in PC when in TT game arent present and do as you do is unnecessary and breaks game feeling, before do this ask to PC players because we play PC game and not necessary play TT game (i never play one and doubt that i do in the future).

PD: i see now a post in beta forum and i read that many of the betatesters think as me that 300 for all clases is a bad idea, expect a change for this in next patch and in future the option to select scale or at least different numbers per army pack that is the minimun that you can do because i have games from a seria that change units scale and attributes in different periods.

EDIT: well, if dont change nothing the numbers why not work in them and do realistic per period??? a little more of work in army packs changing 4 numbers is so hard???

[rbodleyscott]

EDIT: well, if dont change nothing the numbers why not work in them and do realistic per period??? a little more of work in army packs changing 4 numbers is so hard???

I have no objection to this, but you must realise that the missile ranges will not then be to scale.

Again i say the same, this is PC game, not TT game and not all features in TT game works in PC and change numbers in PC when in TT game arent present and do as you do is unnecessary and breaks game feeling, before do this ask to PC players because we play PC game and not necessary play TT game (i never play one and doubt that i do in the future).

It is not the TT game that causes the basic unit size to be 300 - in the TT game these units would be 1,000 men - it is the PC game shooting ranges.

[Scutarii]

A little question rbodleyscott you talk all the time about shooting ranges... well, can you say to me what is the hex scale??? 1 hex represents... what??? 50 meters??? because all shot units have a fixed range, 1-4-5 and then we talk about canons, and i asume that 1 hex represents 50 meters BUT in 2 dimensions and here we can talk about that many people notice before that 300 archers dont occupy the same terrain as 300 HF soldiers because they dont have the same formation (LF/LH use open formation, HF/HH close formations and M units a mixture). The point is that in custom scens you can see all type of scales with the same shoting ranges and i dont see problems with this even are a SoA scen with LF units of 50 soldiers!!!

For me the better solution is have per army a basic scale (for me SoA could be 50 Lunits, 150 MF, 100 HH and HF... 250) and in the game the option to change scale with numbers from 50 to... 5.000 for example in every unit with this you can play the battle that you want

[rbodleyscott]

A little question rbodleyscott you talk all the time about shooting ranges... well, can you say to me what is the hex scale??? 1 hex represents... what??? 50 meters???

Well you can work out the hex scale from historical effective shooting ranges. Going from archery range, it seems that the hex scale is approximately 40 metres.

Really, shooting ranges fix the true scale of a wargame.

If the ground scale for troop representation is different from the ground scale for shooting range, then the simulation is less accurate - but you can still get a good game, with a good flavour of the historical period - it just isn't a "simulation" in the normally accepted sense.

So really there is no reason why your units cannot be 1500/1000/500 as long as you ignore the fact that the shooting ranges don't match these strengths, and ignore the apparent anomaly of the large number of casualties the smaller units inflict on larger ones.

However, going back to my Magnesia example, the Seleucid LF, if in open order, must have been deployed in very deep formations to fit them all in the available space in front of the heavier troops. (The line pike phalanx was itself deployed 32 ranks deep).

I would prefer to see the LF deployed as a single line of units with reasonable efficacy rather than a double line of units each with half as much efficacy. The latter might be more "accurate", and might give a better simulation, but I don't think it would give a better game.

[hidde]

What will happen when the game reach Napoleon times?
An Austerlitz type battle with 20000 soldiers on each side would feel odd I must say.

[Blathergut]

Ideally, you should be able to just right-click each BG and open up a little menu...name it what you want...make the number of troops what you want...would be nice!

[Ironclad]

Ideally, you should be able to just right-click each BG and open up a little menu...name it what you want...make the number of troops what you want...would be nice!

I wouldn't want it individually. Just an option per type so I could recreate the original 500/1000/1500 mix.

[Brigz]

I am assuming that all of this discussion about unit size and missile weapon range is in relation to DAG battles. Aren't all these variables customizable using the scenario editor? In the scenario editor you can change unit name, size and missile range. As I keep saying, I can't understand why the DAG isn't linked with the scenario editor. That would seem to solve the scale problem. It just doesn't make sense to offer an army generator that produces units that aren't editable and can only be played using a random scenario generator. I can only assume the game code is structured so that this can't be done but it seems like such a glaring mistake to design an army generator that is so limited in use.

[Scutarii]

A little question about 1.2.8 and future patches, now if you reinstall again from zero FoG and any army pack you only need install FoG and then... what? army pack and patch or first patch and after this patch??? and another question, is the map patch for FoG include in all patch now??? yes, i refer to the patch with the first custom scens converted in official scens. Thanks.