Slitherine wants your ideas to improve Field of Glory . . .

[TheGrayMouser]

If you have doudts alot of people play single player, check out the stats page on this website that ONLY tracks SP games... As you can see, the author of the TT game has played a staggering amount of sp games !

[redcoat2]

I nearly always play single player.

[JocaRamiro]

Here is a suggestion -

prioritize most highly those improvements that apply to both single and multi-player modes.

[TheGrayMouser]

Here is a suggestion -

prioritize most highly those improvements that apply to both single and multi-player modes.

Thats the gist of what was submited for review, now we wait.......

[stockwellpete]

Just to explain why there is a slight delay. TGM and myself had slightly different approaches to producing a priority list for Slitherine to consider - TGM went for more detail, whereas I was a bit more frugal with the keyboard. So we have sent both of our provisional drafts to Iain at Slitherine and asked him to choose the format that would be best for his development team meeting. Once he has made his choice then the preferred document will be put on here for a few days for comment and amendment (if necessary).

I expect the delay is because of the launch of Decline and Fall this week.

[fosforo]

I'd like to have a real players ranking system for the multiplayer matches.
At now, I only see a little box with my score against AI, but is totally uselesse.

I'd like to have a permanent ranking, in which I can gain many points if I won againts a stronger player, few points If I won againts a weaker player and viceversa.

This is an-almost-no-cost development and I'm sure taht will be very useful to keep the FOG community alive.

Fosforo

[stockwellpete]

We still have not heard from Iain at Slitherine (he is probably very busy) so TGM and myself have done some more work together and we have come up with this compromise document that we would like to submit to Slitherine, so they can consider some of the most popular proposals from us lot - the players. Basically, the question to ask yourself now is - does this document reasonably represent the requests that are made most often on the forum by your fellow players? Of course, if you think something major has been omitted, or needs amendment, then please do say so. We intend to send the final version of the document to Slitherine sometime in the middle of next week. Thanks.

DOCUMENT

Single Player and Multiplayer DAG Improvements
a) hot seat DAG battles
b) players can build AI army and deploy AI army in SP battles
c) better routines for AI picks in its armies i.e.: it takes too many leaders, never chooses allies etc
d) AI tweaks: specifically AI careless with lights, AI does not use non missile lights, use of poor quality troops needs adjusting
e) deployment zones away from the map side edges, additional forward deployment space for palisades (plus the troops to man), and artillery
f) replay an entire battle from start to finish/view the battle while it is the other player's turn
g) ability to specify game play preferences when posting challenges
h) 2 player vs. 2 player MP matches (or more!)
i) custom maps for MP battles
j) name your leaders, custom battle flags
k) add functionality for "flank marches" (as per the TT rules)
l) custom DAG armies

Add-on Functions and Game Play Improvements (all would need significant thought and play testing for balance)
a) campaign game comprised of (not mutually inclusive nor exclusive of others)
-a series of interlinked scenarios getting progressively more challenging
-themed with real generals – for example, Hannibal, Caesar and Alexander
-continuity from one scenario to the next: casualties carry over
-customizable “core” army built via AP’s (think Panzer Corp)
-personalization of generals and units that can gain battle honors, and improve in experience
-customizable size of campaign
-be able to incorporate multiple players using the server
b) combat and missile fire amended so that there are far fewer "extreme" results
c) add a command and control function
d) commanders set to be in the front rank or in the rear rank, differing risk/reward
e) light foot in terrain remain hidden even if in “line of sight” unless they move or shoot
f) routed elephants have variable rout paths possibly thru friendly or enemy units (rampage)
g) consider additional breaks off situations such as cavalry from elephants, light from heavies etc
h) units that attempt to break off but cant should drop a cohesion level (per the TT rules)
i) pursuing units can leave the map and then queue to return.
j) introduce variable army morale breaking point instead of rigid 50% rule
k) deploy 25% of your troops at a time, round robin

Scenario Editor Improvements
a) larger maps
b) introduce new terrain i.e. buildings, walls
c) road movement
d) camps and palisades
e) realistic impassible hexes, ideally two types with support for multiple graphics impassible that blocks LOS and missile, another that does neither ( as is now)
f) greater customization of units : any combination of weapons, armor etc. ability to set individual units: % casualties, cohesion levels, break point worth etc. for the start of a scenario
g) add allies using the editor (currently bugged)
h) ability to modify POA charts, weapons ranges, movement rates
i) support for custom BG graphics
j) fixed units, reinforcements, limited scripting of units, set aggression levels, “defend” “attack”
k) allow specified units/leaders the chance to change sides before a battle (treachery)
l) allow reinforcements during a battle (units arriving late from your camp, flanking movements)
m) add victory conditions (death of the C-in-C is an automatic win or x amount of BP’s, victory hexes to be captured etc.

Miscellaneous
a) add a data dump to upload to the server for ease of tracking and reporting bugs “live”
b) continued support for fixing known bugs

[Skanvak]

1/ impetous unit :

Allow player to ask a unit to don't move. The unit will then immediatly check for impetuous charge. The effect will be that you will know if a member of your line charge and will be able to partially react to it (closer to TT system).

2/ Allow free edition/creation of army list for custom game between friend.

[redcoat2]

Fog of War: When I only had the base game I did not have a FoW option. AFAIK you still don't have FoW if you only have the base game.

[JocaRamiro]

I think the list is great. Here are two additions, one bigger than the other:

1. Allow a player to post a brief text note when putting up a challenge
2. Create a rating system based on multiplayer wins and losses. Handicap game outcomes - that is if you beat a higher ranked player your rating goes up more than if you beat a lower ranked player.

I do recall seeing both of these.

Both should be high priority (I think), with the exeption that #1 ought to be easy, #2 is a bit more work.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think the list is great. Here are two additions, one bigger than the other:

1. Allow a player to post a brief text note when putting up a challenge
2. Create a rating system based on multiplayer wins and losses. Handicap game outcomes - that is if you beat a higher ranked player your rating goes up more than if you beat a lower ranked player.

I do recall seeing both of these.

Both should be high priority (I think), with the exeption that #1 ought to be easy, #2 is a bit more work.

#1 is already there, ist section, sub section G) (and its bolded!)

[JocaRamiro]

Dear Mouser,

The text in question states " "ability to specify game play preferences when posting challenges "

I agree that supplying a text block is one way to implement this. However, it could also be done, for example, by some sort of structured data entry. One might also want to offer remarks such as " I prefer quick turn around". "here are the users: a, b, c, that I most hope to hear from."

So yes, I did see the item, but thought it did not fully cover the requirement.

[stockwellpete]

Myself and TGM will be sending off the "priority document" to Slitherine tomorrow. They will use this at their developer's team meeting early in the New Year. We both think that the sheet should go as originally posted.

There have been a number of suggestions in the last week or so and there are also some interesting ideas being discussed in the "Bugs in the Game" thread. All these will be added to the more detailed "category sheets" that I have also compiled. These contain every idea that has been suggested by players in the last year (not just those in the "priority document") and they too will eventually be sent to Slitherine so they can refer to them in the future if they need to. In this way nothing will be omitted or censored and everybody who has taken the trouble to think about the game and write things down can feel that they have made a positive contribution to the game.

It is over to the developers now. Cheers everyone and have a good holiday wherever you are.

[deeter]

A real, up-to-date manual would also be nice.

Deeter

[Lysimachos]

Let me send a heartful thank you to stockwellpete & TheGrayMouser for the really great job!

[Lysimachos]

Let me send a heartful thank you to stockwellpete & TheGrayMouser for the really great job!

[FedeM]

Recheck the armor. Actually the game doesnt make any diference if you shoot with missile for example Armored or Protected Cavalry.

Tks

[FedeM]

That would be a dream. e.g. The hastati disengaging and keaving the room for the Princeps to enter the fray.

On the HPS Ancient Warfare Games the Lgionaries are able to do it.

My two cents

[peterb1201]

Noticeably missing from this list (and I think important): user-interface improvements, which help bring more new users into the game.

viewtopic.php?t=20233

[Skanvak]

That would be a dream. e.g. The hastati disengaging and keaving the room for the Princeps to enter the fray.

On the HPS Ancient Warfare Games the Lgionaries are able to do it.

My two cents

Wonderful idea. Voluntary disengagement is lacking (Guillaume used this tactics at the battle of Hastings). As pushing rear unit to the front to be able to refresh unit in between two impassable terrain hexes.