Best Ideas to Improve FOG PC

[mceochaidh]

To TGM's comment on leaders, I think they did actually control formations and should be considered controlling formations. They were personalities as well, inspiring or not. Should the commander decide to charge in with their body guards, they then take the risks involved.

The existing double move function requires being in command range. The penalty for movement that Pete and I tested (-1 hex for being out of command), is, to me, very similar in concept. In a way, it is the reverse of it.

I accepted a game with Seleucids against Numidians a while back. Of course, I did not know whom I was playing when I accepted. After looking at the map, I decided to perform an experiment. I did not have a large enough army to hold both flanks, so I spread out my entire army with one hex open between each BG. Then I moved forward. It was like herding cats. I did not enjoy the game very much. My opponent must have liked it less, because after about 4 turns, I never heard from him again. I was able to play this way because each of my BGs could move as they wished. Of course, this is an extreme example, as the Numidians are almost all light troops. Of course, I would not try that against PantherBoy playing Numidians! The point is, I was able to play that way because there was no incentive not to.

[TheGrayMouser]

Oops dont misquote me, i certainly am not saying there was no command and control in history , my comment was that how FOG curerntly represents leaders is NOT command , but leadership , that is all.

Example, a captain is in command of a company , which is a formation(both administrative and possibly tactical) Who/what he orders (and is ordered) and under what cirumstances and who will listen to him is depended on that structure: command

However , that captain rushing about urging his platoons to hold steady, making quick decisive orders, etc etc that is leadership.

FOG leaders give the latter (cohesion tests, combat bonus the "hurry up" of the double moves), but there is nothing currently in the game that does ANYTHING for the former, which is why i think it will be difficult to add something where there is zero structure present at all.

[mceochaidh]

TGM,

Sorry for the misquote; You have asked the fundamental question. Should FOG even contemplate any command and control system? Should we settle for the present system, which we all play and provides a good contest? Those questions are really what I hoped to flesh out by starting this thread. The problem as I see it on this issue: commando BGs with ultimate knowledge of the entire map. The solution?

[TheGrayMouser]

I believe its a worthy discussion, the only problem is Hexwar holds all the cards I think an issue of any large change is that the company as well as many players have a considerable vested interest of the game as is, wrinkles and all. i dont mean $ either since for the 120 bucks i have spent on the game plus expansions has been returned pennies on the dollar per hour of enjoyment.

I like your and Kilroys /Petes idea as it is simple, hard to find loopholes and likely would be easy to program. i dont like it as i just dont like the artificiality of it ( i think most gamers have certain abstrctions they are ok with , others they find intolerable) If it was implemented i likly could adapt though.

I did propose several alternatives that would give the appearaance of CnC without trying to explicitly program it. Several options for phase based movement/combat resolution, or the other post i had several pages back where a series of small game play changes (like light foot moving 3 hexes etc) could give the effect to reach the goal of making the game feel more historical or removing the most egregious "gamey ' aspects out of the game.

I'm still thinking about a CnC method similar to Steel Panthers 3, cant get past some issues but the gist is formations would be assigned an Objective (meaning a hex coordinate) and the formation really could not easily veer off a track toward it without having apropriate command points to spend.

[deeter]

TGM is right in that FoG TT does not model command & control, nor even chain of command really. And that's probably okay when you're only dealing with a dozen multi-stand BGs. The system breaks down though when you have 60+ small BGs all running around with complete autonomy.

Yes, as posted above, players tend to spread out their pikes in an ahistorical attempt to herd shooty armies off the map. I've done it myself and didn't enjoy it, but if that's the only way to win, what else can you do.

So, I once again conclude that most problems with FoG PC come from not having larger formations imposed on armies. It has also just dawned on me that leaders are less effective currently than they would be on the TT. Having a leader adjacent to a BG is a much better use of his points when supporting a large BG than when supporting a hex or two worth of units.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

For what it's worth, herding against a skirmishing shoot cav army is a very viable tactic in FOG TT as well as PC. Take a look at battle reports on madaxemen.com.

Chris

[deeter]

To be sure, but at least pikes and the like are maneuvering in larger formations than single BGs so at least it looks better.

Deeter

[mceochaidh]

Leaders also are tied to BGs in FOG PC, so usually move slower and their BG is usually a high quality Cav BG that is eventually needed in battle. Anyone know why this design change was made from the TT rules, where leaders are separate and move as light horse?

[TheGrayMouser]

Leaders also are tied to BGs in FOG PC, so usually move slower and their BG is usually a high quality Cav BG that is eventually needed in battle. Anyone know why this design change was made from the TT rules, where leaders are separate and move as light horse?

My complete guess is it was a design decision to streamline play (less units to move about) but also to make the AI a viable opponent ( when FOG ist came out they likly had no idea if it would be a success and there was no dags and NO MP either)
I think of every game I own where leaders are seperate entities, the AI just cant handleit, and is punished by players and made to look real bad

[batesmotel]

It's an intentional simplification as far as I can tell. Since there are no stacking rules in FoG PC, there would need to be a special implementation and complication just to handle leaders. In FoG TT games, leaders are normally with a BG at any given time although they will sometimes need to move to be with different BGs in order to rally them or some times for a specific one that the player wants to support in combat. In general I think the PC implementation works well without special leader movement rules although I would prefer if the DAG allowed all armies the option to get leaders as either LF or LH in order to allow them more mobility and to avoid tieing up what may be one of a limited number of high value combat units in a role where they may never fight, e.g. Companions or Agema in a Macedonian army. The current restrictions on what troop type a leader may be with in the army lists seems to be rather arbitrary.

Chris

[mceochaidh]

TGM said:

A set up some type of “formation system” where units are assigned a group(likely at deployment), ideally of like unit types. I am thinking for most 500 ap armies 5 or 6 groups would be a good #.
Once the game starts, a “group” will “activiate” and the player MUST do any actions with any units in that group, moving , shooting impact melee etc. Once done the next group activates.
The sequence of groups could be simple and random or as complex as we want. Perhaps a group would be given an initiave rating based on the majority type ie a group of all cavalry might have a high initiative so activates last.( to take advantage of what happened in prior sequences) Perhaps there could be a deferal sytem where you could defer a group from activating to have another group go ist.

TGM, the more I read this the more it reminds me of a miniatures set I played a long time ago; so long that I can't even remember the name. It had movement based on initiative in which one command from one side would move first, then the command with the highest initiative rating from the opposing side would move, then back to the command from the first side with the next highest initiative and so on until all commands moved. It simulated a semi-simultaneous movement and did it pretty well. Not sure if it could work with FOG, but some version of your thought or this is worth developing. The key would be an ability to define the "formation" or "group" as you describe or to assign BGs to a specific command in the other system, as is done with ally commands.

[Morbio]

One thing I'd like to see which would open the game up to a lot of new possibilities is multiplayer DAG battles. I don't mean the current multiplayer (1v1), but true multiplayer of NvN. This would make campaign-type games much more interesting whereby allies could actually fight in a battle! I think for practical purposes that NvN may be limited to a maximum of 3v3 or maybe 2v2, with all combinations below that i.e. 3v1, 3v2, 2v1 too.

I don't think this would be too much work to implement. The rules of combat stay as is, but what changes is the movement mechanism. Probably the easiest way to explain how it might work would be to give an example. e.g. 2v1

Side 1: Player A and Player B

Side 2: Player C

Assume Side 1 has initiative. Player A moves his units and ends the turn as normal. The hotseat then moves to Player B he sees Player A's moves and now does likewise. So far this is normal, it's just that the moves are split between 2 players who are only allowed to move their own units.

Player C now sees both Player A and Player B's moves and makes his moves. To all intents and purposes this is the current state.

Player A sees Player B's moves followed by Player C's moves and then makes his moves... and so on. This goes on until combat is initiated...

Player A moves and resolves combat with his troops as normal. Player B watches Player C's moves followed by A's moves then moves and resolves his combats. Player C then sees the moves of A and B then makes his moves and resolves his combat.

Essentially the game is the same as now except that instead of 2 players, there are up to N (e.g. 6 for 3v3) and the moves cycle through the players of Side 1 and then Side 2 and back to 1 again, etc.

If you want to spice it up and make it less predictable you could randomise the player sequence for each side (you'd still need to move all Side 1 before Side 2), e.g. you may get the following using the same setup as the previous example;

Turn 1: A > B > C
Turn 2: A > B > C
Turn 3: B > A > C
Turn 4: A > B > C
etc.

Just think how exciting world games could become!

[TheGrayMouser]

Morbio:

That would be awsome to have a MP system as you describe. I think on the front end it would be easy to do as well. Player A issues the challenge and other players when they log in would see three slots available for that challenge, one left for side 1 and 2 for side 2 and could chose whatever they wish, Once 4 players (or whatver number the challenge is for), the game starts.


mceochaidh:
Not sure what game you are thinking of but I can think of several that have something similar: the GBOH Alexnder, Hannibal, Ceasar etc (GMT) games (both board and PC) , and a differnet era but the Horse and Musket PC game (Matrix)
I wouldnt suggest the variable activation for either sides leaders though , as that is contrary to the easy MP system FOG has where A goes and then b goes.

[Morbio]

I've been thinking more (dangerous I know) and I think it is a little more complicated than I first posted. The playing mechanics are essentially the same, the real work would be to develop a new process to post and accept NvN challenges, along with any rules to limit army selections and ensuring any points balance is still maintained. There may also be work to define who is the main unit on the multiplayer side(s), i.e. has CinC, and who are allies.

This could link to previous posts then if a armies leader dies, would there be any impact.... would the allies rout and run away? (a CMT test). This could bring in the tactic to target the commander(s) as I believe Alexander did at Guagamela, which made Darius Run and essentially won the battle. However, for simplicity you could just carry on (as is the current state).

It could also incorporate the concept of BPs per army. See your allies break and rout, but the main army fights on (that player no longer moves in the sequence) until the combined armies BPs are reached?

Ohhhh. I'm getting excited now!

[deeter]

One thing to make it easier to do would be to create your team (players, who is CnC, who has what army, etc.) before issuing your challenge. Anyone accepting the challenge would haver created their team before hand. It would then function just as challenges work now. They only difference would be PMing other players to set up the match and the teams.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

I think it would be important too, to have the "host" be able to remove a player or add a player to replace one, in the event someone cant continue in a timely manner, ie started then realised going on vacation for a few weeks w/o access to the game, arms caught in a combine and cant use a mouse to play the turns etc (not that they are playing badly of course )

[FedeM]

Hi,
Do not know if it has been addressed but I think it would be nice that when battlegroups move and they are out of sight the map didn't show you the area where the move was made.

That would improve surprise.

Tks

Tks

[TheGrayMouser]

Hi,
Do not know if it has been addressed but I think it would be nice that when battlegroups move and they are out of sight the map didn't show you the area where the move was made.

That would improve surprise.

Tks

Tks

Not sure what you mean by that , unless you mean that the map "centers" on an indivual enemy BG "area" during your opponents move, even if it is out of LOS? ( a lot of turnbased games do that)

Hmmm, or are you refering to the bug (that Hexwar claims isnt a bug but a performance/computer issue ) where when the game switches to your turn , fow is lifted very briefly (exposing all enemy bg''s hidden or not) while the map re-renders line of sight ?? I think this only effects battles vs the AI, especially really large battles where it takes some processing time for the engine to recalc LOS/FOW etc.

[Morbio]

Hi,
Do not know if it has been addressed but I think it would be nice that when battlegroups move and they are out of sight the map didn't show you the area where the move was made.

That would improve surprise.

Tks

Tks

I have mixed views on this. Part of me agrees that it does reduce the chance of surprise, but part of me thinks this represents the 'sounds' that a commander may hear, e.g. he can hear some horses moving off to the left and may even get a feel for the distance, but he can't see them. Therefore the game represents this well.

[TheGrayMouser]

Dust clouds to mark areas of hidden troop movement would be a cool addition, epecially if they ever added varying spotting ranges to simulate overcast weather , dusk, rain. fog etc , maybe get some snowy maps for Northernly inclined army lists....