Beta Version 1.2.10 Available

[keithmartinsmith]

Just click the

check for updates

button in version beta 1.2.9.

Release Version 1.2.9, 8th July 2010
1.Add: 20 additional army lists.
2.Add: Display of results in multiplayer window.
3.Add: Logic: Ability to give more than one move order to any one unit in each player turn.
4.Fix: All reported forum bugs.
5.Fix: In the map editor, in Mac OS X, you could not access unit properties by right-clicking a unit.
6.Fix: In the 'new game' window, the value for Complexity did not always fit.
7.Fix: Net: Immortal Fire serial numbers were being registered incorrectly.
8.Fix: UI: The radiobutton for 'paired games' was wrongly left visible in army generator games.
9.Fix: In the army generator, when enforcing the type of or-constraint that requires all one or all the other troop spec to be selected, the count for the wrong row would sometimes be increased.
10.Fix: The message about a beta would sometimes come up behind the game.
11.Pending: Hellenistic Greek and Later Persian.
12.Pending: New battles.

More information at http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... notes.aspx

Keith

[batesmotel]

Hurry up with the Late Achaemenids since they are probably the list I wanted to try most in IF . I can't wait to swarm some body with a zillion BGs of poor light spear cavalry . And they think Bosporans are evil.

Chris

[deeter]

I don't see any new army lists.

Deeter

[grumblefish]

Just updated, and I saw the new army lists... didn't count them all, but the ones I looked at are great. Top job!

Only one question... "rowers (disguised as hoplites)"... won't your opponent just move his mouse over the unit and discover the truth? heh

EDIT: Early Syracusan, Syracusan, and Late Syracusan appear to be identical; at least the descriptions are identical and I didn't notice any differences when I skimmed over the army lists

[grumblefish]

please please please can we get an in-game option to delete or rename armies? I'm really tired of having to go to username>mydocuments>slitherine>fogarmies> select all and delete everytime I want to do start with a clean slate

[Scutarii]

No returns to the old BG sizes??? mantein the patetic 300??? expect see return to old numbers when IF arrives

[IainMcNeil]

Why - we never said that would happen.

[Scutarii]

Well, is better than 300 and PC people dont like it i think that is enough until you can develop a better system or work in have a different scale per army pack, i don want play with the same scale in RoR, IF and SoA and if in a poll people say at least dont touch it and you do it what the hell do you have a forum for PC game??? viewtopic.php?t=16785

Dont understand me bad, i like FoG but PC version, i dont buy TT version and dont like see TT rule over PC because isnt the game for that i pay.

[IainMcNeil]

Most people are happy so it's not an issue we're putting as high priority. The poll you sent proves that so I just don't understand why you're being so negative.

It feels like anything you dont like you say its a problem from the tabletop. It's nothing to do with the tabletop

The point is things have been thought through thoroughly from a game design point of view on tabletop and well tested so when people say this is how the TT works, its usually because its a good design choice, not a limit of the TT game.

Also, the game is based on the tabletop game Field of Glory and you cannot expect the design to completely ignore its roots.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but please don't use the PC/TT conversion card all the time.

[Scutarii]

No, most people isnt happy with the change and the lurkers that never post i think that dont help to improve the game and asume that they are ok with changes because they dont post is use then as excuse to do changes that players dont like, in beta are a post talking about this in 1.2.7 and people dont like this change they say it to you but because they dont say "is great" simply ignore then and do the change (what the hell you do a beta if yoy ignore betatesters???) and i talk about TT game because you say that the new 300 is because is more close to TT game... well, one thing is base a game in another and other very different is take 2 game with different units scale and movement system (hexagons) and try to improve one doing all as in the first when in other things we can see that dont works fine (anarchy charges).

Now the game isnt perfect for % fans and for numbers fans, is a mixture and after 8 months fix this little things is important.

I like FoG but only PC version and when i buy it have 3 different units scales and expect at least see this scales changing for every army pack to reflect historical features not find now that after 3 army packs have the same number of soldiers a phalanx from Alexander than a knight unit i know that numbers dont change the game but i dont like play with abstract % and if you use soldiers numbers at least work in then and do it close to historical or leave people play with the numbers they want.

I post again about this because i see that you are going to ignore this and leave the patetic 300 number because you say that isnt an important feature and BLA BLA BLA well, if isnt an important feature what the hell you change it???.

Sorry but i think that after IF i dont buy more army packs because i dont like the last changes in the game and dont like see that i buy a PC game and now i see it under Taliban rule from TT.

[batesmotel]

Do you care whether FoG PC provides any realism/accuracy in how it depicts ancient and medieval combat? The count of 300 per BG was chosen on this basis compared with the range of missile weapons, not based on the scale used in the TT game. If the count was set to be the same as in the TT game, it would be closer to 1000-1200 per BG but then missile ranges would be unrealistically long. If you don't care about realism, then I guess the original numbers are as good as setting the counts to 100,000 or 200,000 per group. (Those numbers would certainly make it easier to recreate Classical battles against the Persians based on Greek accounts . )

Chris

[IainMcNeil]

You are missing the point Scutarri - the battlegroups for DAG have to be the same size as you can fight armies from other books. This is a fundamental requirement for gameplay. You cant have a 100 man knight block the same as 1500 Legionary block. It's goign to confuse teh hell out of people. Scenarios can set the size of battlegroups to be anything.

Saying that you speak for the silent majority is very misleading - nobody knows what the silent majority wants (they're silent!) and we use our best efforts and many years of experience to deliver what we think they want. You want this changed for your own personal reasons, not because it will make the game better for others as you don;t know what peopel who have never posted think

Having said all this I've already told you we will add a sliedr bar at some point if we can so you can set the sizes. This is not going to happen in the near future so please stop going on about it!

[Scutarii]

Numbers dont affect to combat i know this but affect to "feeling" and in beta 1.2.7 post people say what they think about the change other thing is that you ignore them and if i keep talking about this is because it could be like with anarchy charges where finally you change them because TT "Bible" dont works in PC and i think that for do army packs more "easy" you are going to do 300 for all and end point.

And again, if FoG for PC is an abstract game what the hell means shoot ranges??? is only a excuse to put all units with 300 and occpy the same space (here you dont talk about scales no???) and until patch 1.2.7 players asume that heavy units in numbers have more compact formations and with this HF are better in close combat than LF but now... why HF defeat usually LF??? they have now the same density per hexagon with 300 why i cant stack more units in a hex???

Again, if the old values are fine why you change it using TT excuse??? is only because you want have all units with same scale to do easier army packs.

PD: until i pay for a game i ride it if i want.

[IainMcNeil]

What more can I say - it is not going to change in teh near future and you are not speaking for lots of other people so stop implying that

[Scutarii]

Well we can do a poll to know if players like or not like the 300 feature i think that the opinion of people who post in the forum is important no???

For me the problem is that in a cosmetic feature like soldier numbers that isnt a critical feature and works (not perfect but works) you do a change and ignore people who warning about this change in 1.2.7 beta patch and now FoG for DAG (if i can change all i want in editor is so difficult change the scale of units in DAG??? if i want see in my PC units with 500-1000-1500 why i cant do it) is bad for people who only like % and for numbers users is more "simple" now but hey, is better because is now closer to TT game!!! well, if i want somecloser to TT game i can buy TT game but i dont do it i buy PC game.

PD: sorry for my way of being but i think that i leave you 300 never is never going to change because with anarchy charges features was so close to appear of happening.