Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Moderators: Slitherine Core, NewRoSoft, FoG PC Moderator

Post Reply
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

Around Xmas 2011 myself and The Gray Mouser submitted to Slitherine a document containing all the player suggestions for improvements to FOG. Iain from Slitherine had asked that we do it. The document contained a section for scenario design and these were the main points . . .

i) greater scope to customise units e.g. being able to set rout points for individual units at any of the map edges, extending longbow range to 6 hexes, designating late medieval artillery as "poor"; the ability to create units at less than their nominal strength (ie # of men); to be able to set cohesion levels; to set movement rates on an individual unit basis; to allow any combination of weapons armour etc when creating a unit (for example, the engine doesnt allow one to give pikes anything other than protected); ability to set break points for single Battle Group; ability to adjust Complex Move Test "Score to Pass" value on a unit basis by setting a variable from 2 to 12. Also allow a setting of "0" to indicate never fails. This would greatly help fine tune "anarchy"vi) to open up the POA charts for editing

ii) bigger maps; being able to use square DAG maps 40x40 or 50x50 for scenarios that we are intending to submit to Slitherine at some stage. Bosworth Field, Kinsale, Najera, Aljubarrota would all work better on a square map

iii) weather conditions, including rain and snow

iv) buildings and walls, camps and palisades, possibility to place field fortifications on any part of the map

v) possibility for battle groups to start in a fixed status and to set the turn of release for fixed Battle Group/allow units on map not to be able to move until a specified game turn (units are in camp, surprised, taking time to get organized, "allies" are deciding who to ally with)

vi) to fix things that don’t work in the editor as of now but should like assigning allies

vii) conditional victory conditions (death of the C-in-C is an automatic win, taking this hilltop/breaching this river line is worth so many BP's, etc.)

viii) army's experience level to affect its Battle Point total (for every three Superior BG's or two Elite BG's increase the army's BP's by one, and for every two Poor BG's decrease the BP's by one, etc.)

ix) allow reinforcements during a battle (units arriving late from your camp, flanking movement, see above)

x) support for customised unit graphics

Seeing as we have a number of scenario-builders who have joined since Xmas 2011 there may be other things that need adding, or some of the existing points may need modification. If we can update this list over the next few months then we can re-submit it when the developers are ready to address gameplay issues. I think scenario-builders are very important to FOG inasmuch as they increase the replayability of the game and help generate interest about the various historical periods. For that reason, I feel that our requests for changes should receive early consideration.

I will update/modify this list as new ideas come forward. :wink:
Last edited by stockwellpete on Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:49 pm, edited 6 times in total.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

I have had a look at the scenario editor this morning and I have noted the following issues . . .

a) terrain categories not working at all are "Ford" and "Blocked"; "Road" gives no movement bonuses and is purely decorative; "Impassable" does not block "line of sight" (LOS)

b) unit categories not working at all are "Default Rout Direction" and "Leader Properties"; the "Experience" level for pikemen and artillery cannot be edited; the "Shooting Range" of missile units cannot be edited

Suggestions not included in the Xmas 2011 document (for discussion)

i) "impassable" terrain looks like a moonscape at the moment so replace it with more naturalistic impassable woods and marsh hexes that block LOS (maybe these impassable hexes would not be apparent at the outset and would be "discovered" during the game, giving greater value to scouting units)

ii) "Leader Profile" is not activated, but as it stands ("Timid", "Average", "Aggressive" etc) it does not seem compatible anyway with existing FOG rules (TT or PC). An alternative classification could be to have "Inexperienced", "Average", "Experienced" (this would also need a rule change). Instead of having default command values for "Troop" and "Field" commanders at 3 and 5 hex range, maybe those settings should just be for the "average commanders" with "inexperienced" being minus 1 hex range and "experienced" being plus 1 hex range. Obviously experienced commanders, whether troop or field would cost more than inexperienced ones.
ZeaBed
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: USA

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by ZeaBed »

Excellent ideas, Peter and company. You've touched upon every conceivable issue and desirable future feature, imho. One additional item I would add would be variable terrain. The Battle of Tarifa (1340 AD), for example, which I'm currently considering, is a largish map with green hills descending into a sandy beach. If such contrasting terrain could be modeled in the same scenario map I think it would be desirable.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

ZeaBed wrote:Excellent ideas, Peter and company. You've touched upon every conceivable issue and desirable future feature, imho. One additional item I would add would be variable terrain. The Battle of Tarifa (1340 AD), for example, which I'm currently considering, is a largish map with green hills descending into a sandy beach. If such contrasting terrain could be modeled in the same scenario map I think it would be desirable.
I am fairly certain that variable terrain will be included in the new Unity re-write of FOG, Zeabed. :D

EDIT: Yes page 10 near the bottom . . .

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... &start=180

Is that what you mean, Zeabed?
ZeaBed
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: USA

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by ZeaBed »

Yes indeed. I missed that part in the thread you linked. Very good. Thanks. I'll just wait for new developments I think before i work on my next scenario then.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

I have just tidied up the list and grouped the points together around certain themes. Shall I add that we would like to see a small selection of Renaissance troop types for our 16th C scenarios? Arquebusiers, wheeled artillery, Spanish pikemen, reiters etc?
TheGrayMouser
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Posts: 5001
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by TheGrayMouser »

stockwellpete wrote:I have just tidied up the list and grouped the points together around certain themes. Shall I add that we would like to see a small selection of Renaissance troop types for our 16th C scenarios? Arquebusiers, wheeled artillery, Spanish pikemen, reiters etc?
Hmm, I certainly woudnt be sad if they added these new graphics , yet I also see no reason why they would ever do so as painting the minies and importing them into the game requires $

Also, FOG AM is not suited, as is, for Ren warfare. Maybe someday they will open up the POA charts, combat tables etc for modding , that way at least you can get the combat right, graphics come second:)
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

TheGrayMouser wrote:
Hmm, I certainly woudnt be sad if they added these new graphics , yet I also see no reason why they would ever do so as painting the minies and importing them into the game requires $

Also, FOG AM is not suited, as is, for Ren warfare. Maybe someday they will open up the POA charts, combat tables etc for modding , that way at least you can get the combat right, graphics come second:)
I was only thinking of 3 or 4 new troop types, TGM. Maybe arquebusiers, a mobile artillery type, Spanish pikemen and possibly musketeers. Basically they would just be for the scenario-builders because between us we are creating quite a nice little collection of 16thC scenarios now. It may not cost Slitherine anything at all if we can find someone who has suitable figures already and knows how to photograph them to scale. I am not sure how to do this myself or whether someone with Photoshop skills can help us at all.

It seems to me that some of the existing figures we have are quite suitable for 16thC scenarios anyway. For example, the handgunners could easily pass as arquebusiers as there was not a lot of difference in the size of the two weapons; musketeers would need a new unit altogether though as the gun was usually mounted on a stand and often had a "crew" of two. Also, the mounted handgunners we already have could easily pass for reiters. As you say opening up the POA charts and allowing a full edit of every unit would solve most of the problems that scenario builders face now.

The issue often raised in these sorts of discussions is how to cope with the Spanish tercio and you are quite right to say that FOG as it is cannot really handle these very large formations. But an attempt can be made simply by adding rear rank handgunners (arquebusiers if we get them) to the pike unit. Obviously this does not solve the problem of individual pike units separating off on their own but, to be quite honest, FOG does not really represent medieval warfare very well either in this respect. Until we get some proper "command and control" rules the game will continue to lack a certain amount of historical credibility.

If the decision really has been made not to produce a FOG Renaissance version for the PC in the forseeable future then I think it strengthens our position to ask for a few concessions in that direction for the scenario builders. What might be worth thinking about in the longer run is whether another Battlepack covering the 16thC is a viable proposition. I think it might sell quite well provided we have the proper units available to us.
fogman
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1876
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by fogman »

"The issue often raised in these sorts of discussions is how to cope with the Spanish tercio and you are quite right to say that FOG as it is cannot really handle these very large formations. But an attempt can be made simply by adding rear rank handgunners (arquebusiers if we get them) to the pike unit."

You can't add a rear rank of handgunners. I had to use crossbows, and I tried to replicate the range but the range can't be changed. I also tried to make some pikemen unprotected but for some reasons that can't be done either.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

fogman wrote:"The issue often raised in these sorts of discussions is how to cope with the Spanish tercio and you are quite right to say that FOG as it is cannot really handle these very large formations. But an attempt can be made simply by adding rear rank handgunners (arquebusiers if we get them) to the pike unit."

You can't add a rear rank of handgunners. I had to use crossbows, and I tried to replicate the range but the range can't be changed. I also tried to make some pikemen unprotected but for some reasons that can't be done either.
Sorry, I made a mistake there - I should have said put "firearms" in the "ranged weapons" slot. It works OK but obviously medieval handguns are not as lethal as arquebuses. No, you can't modify pikemen for armour at the moment. Hopefully we can get that fixed at some point.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14501
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Scenario-builders wish list (April 2013) . . .

Post by stockwellpete »

Just a thought that came to me - it would be good if any optional "historical house rules" that we make for our scenarios could come up on the screen before the start of a battle. At the moment the scenario designer has to point them out to their opponent.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Scenario Design”