cothyso wrote:We're fixing bugs, polishing the interface and working on AI and iOS and Android builds.
The progress is fine, why should we lied about it? The game is in open beta right now, so everyone can access the Beta forums and everyone having the digital FoG(RB) can download and play with the PC version of it.
We'll also put a new build soon, and we'll delete all current existing MP games (as the MP protocol has changed).
If possible please add citys to the game, would be great.
Its my only whish for the game.
Being a Senile Old Coot of the First Order (I wear the battle ribbon proudly), I'll wait until a test AI appears. Too often when I simply play against myself I rout myself so soundly that it is weeks before I'll try playing again. (grim heroic look for the cameras)
aka The Count dTen
"Quam stultus sed, quam fidelis"
what's very important to many players is "replayability" the reason i never buy many games is no random generator scenarios. Even though FOG had RGA it didn't appeal to me because it didn't have RGS (random generated scenarios) and I and my friends won't be buying into version 2.0 unless it has RGS.
I haven't been following this thread so I don't know if these things have been discussed earlier within it, but I thought I'd put forth my thoughts and ideas for improvements to the game. What follows is divided into two parts: definite improvements, the things that I think should be definitely implemented; and ideas, some suggestions or things to think about.
Definite Improvements
- Green/arid maps
Some players, myself included, are dismayed when playing on geographically anachronistic maps, in regard to their two "green" or "arid" flavours. Battles that do subsequently occur, like Hundred Years War or War of the Roses battles fought in the desert, just feel silly while Middle Eastern battles always feel more authentic on the arid maps. It's a shame when so much care has been put into period historical accuracy in other parts of the game that this peculiarity is still allowed to continue.
It seems as though the green and arid maps have been produced separately - there are maps that only appear in green and others that only appear in arid. It would be better if there was only one template for each map that would then automatically change to arid or green according to the players' choice. Then there'd be more overall maps and there wouldn't be any tactical advantages in competition terms for choosing a "green" or "arid" style of army.
As for the mechanics of how to introduce this, I see two avenues: top-down, by the game makers or bottom-up, controlled by the users.
If it was the former, then the game makers could perhaps divide all the armies into three camps. Firstly, "green only", being Central, North and East European armies; "green or arid", being a lot of the Mediterranean and perhaps some Steppes armies. And thirdly, "arid only" armies, being most of the Middle Eastern and North African armies.
If a "green only" army played another "green only" or a "green and arid" army then they'd play on a green map (and vice versa for "arid only" armies). If a "green only" and an "arid only" army faced each other then the choice would be green or arid as the match-up would be a bit of a fantasy, ahistorical one anyway.
Secondly, it could be implemented bottom-up by the users where, when players are setting up a game, they select an option for map flavour.
Personally, I think top-down would be the better option. It would settle the problem once and for all and I can't see it being that difficult to code. Bottom-up would mean it's another thing for every player to have do before every future game and I'm sure there'd be the occasional mistake by a player who doesn't know his geography and environmental climatology so well.
It would also be great to have more overall maps, of course, and I'm sure that many could be created by the users of the game for free. davouthojo had an idea a while ago for uploading user-created maps to some website or other where they could be assessed and incorporated in the game if they found favour. This idea could be easily implemented with the co-operation of the game designers/custodians. It would be an exciting enhancement of the game if most battles were on fresh and unfamiliar maps - some of the current maps crop up so often they can feel a bit tired.
- Supporting LF bows
Sorting out the free supporting LB question once and for all. This has been discussed time and time again and the consensus always seems to be that something should be done about it.
My own feeling is that it should cost one point. If necessary, they could be given a small chance of disrupting enemy units.
- Map previews
I've written about this elsewhere recently but on the map previews one can't tell the difference between gentle and steep hills. The difference between these terrain types has huge implifications for the battle and the disordering effect they have for different troop types. It's easy to make the wrong map choice because of this lack of clear differentiation in the map previews.
There could even be a graphical key to the different colours represented on the preview map. This would be especially helpful to the newer players. Even as an experienced player I can't remember whether grey represents a gully or impassable hills, as one example of several. An alternative, I suppose, would be that one could click and view the actual available maps before choosing one.
Ideas
- Screenshots
It would be nice if the game incorporated the facility to make screenshots. It would be even better if there was an option to record screenshots of the whole zoomed-out battlefield automatically every turn. It would be very interesting to watch a slideshow of the progress of a battle (something that could be done in Windows rather than in-game).
- Offer draw option
An option to offer a draw might be useful. There are occasional games where one side has a strong defensive position and the other side is unwilling to attack, while the defender knows to leave his position would mean defeat. An "offer draw" function would resolve this without one player having to resign or the whole 20-odd turns played out.
- Friendly/Ranked games
I've seen that in the past there's been a ranking system, recording and displaying one's battle record, although I don't think it's still active. If this was to be re-introduced then I think there should also be a "friendly" or "ranked game" option added at game set-up stage, where you can choose to play a game that isn't recorded in these statistics or one that is.
I, and I'm sure other players, have some more experimental types of games or others where less well-regarded armies are tried out as a challenge. If all games were recorded then these sort of games would be unviable.
Otherwise, I think the return of the ranking system might be a fun development and there could perhaps be all-time rankings, yearly rankings, monthly rankings and so on.
_ a simple way to save the army at the end of a battle to use them in the next battle as it (ie with the damaged they have taken). A way to edit those file would be needed too. This is for campaign play.
_ allow free form army for friendly game. Again for campaign play.
_ I'd like a complete army editor and unit editor (ability to create unit icon, name and army list for those unit). This is of course either for campaign or experimental purpose.
According to the rules, I still miss the fact that unit cannot be pushed.
1) Hotseat for DAG armies. I do have a friend who sometimes comes round and we really would enjoy being able to create armies in DAg and play against one another in hotseat.
As a pure turn-based game with very limited fog of war, this game is really well suited for hotseat and i can't understand why there wasn't DAG hotseat support from day 1.
2) Option to challenge your MP opponent after the game was resolved to re-fight the battle with the same terrain and same armies, or to re-fight the same battle, but with swiching sides (kind of makign this a paired game counterpart of sorts).
3) Option to send messages to other players even those taht you aren't fighting a battle against at the moment. And opion to block messages and challenges from unwated players (I wish there were no rude players in FoG, but I recently found my first rude opponent).
4) Option to fight random DAG battles against the AI with a handicap. The AI isn't taht great and singleplayer battles could benefit from giving some handicap.
5) Option to accept not just challenges from all those armies that existed in the same period as your army (and not just from the same armybook). So for example I'd be able to fight medieval french from SoA with medieval hungarians from EE, but not with ancient romans etc.
Good ideas, btw you can kinda do #4 already, just make a 1000 Ap army but only purchase 500AP's of troops, the AI should (if the DAG list is capable) build 1000 aps worth of troops.
Another thing I'd like to see is AI build variability. Currently the AI build selection is weak and sadly, it NEVER takes allies
I'll add: ability to use chose your own saved DAG armies for the AI to use. And the ability to deploy the AI army before the battle begins...
I've waited years for various 2.0s to appear for other game manufacturers. Once for a freelance article I was doing, a whole company disappeared while I was visiting others. So the general lack of "Hi, we're not dead yet" progress reports always worries me. I'm in worse shape because the version of 2.0 I most wish for would be for FOG(R).
aka The Count dTen
"Quam stultus sed, quam fidelis"
Actually, the beta got to bRC8u01, and will receive another update soon (days). This week we've also comited the first working AI code to the code base, so an AI bRC9 will follow soon too.
Other than that, the FoG(U) is in open beta, which means anyone having FoG(RB) base game can try it out right now, with the Ai being the only missing thing yet.
1. That the points system provide each army with a balance against ANY army out there. Thus Jewish Revolt should be able to beat the Roman army now and then.
2. LI and LH should not be able to defeat superior heavily armored Knights. And other such issues.
#1 & #2 do not negate the idea that an inferior TYPE of army like the Picts should be able to beat the Romans .... and yes it would be obvious that the terrain for the maps in that matchup should be Mixed or worse. Not say8ng that the Picts should win often in the open ...
New MP maps would help. Something that has hills on both sides of a valley where the hills are running parallel to the armies.
Hoping that this final build is ready by February .... is that an unrealistic wish on my part? Or will this drag out another year?
jimkoby wrote:I've waited years for various 2.0s to appear for other game manufacturers. Once for a freelance article I was doing, a whole company disappeared while I was visiting others. So the general lack of "Hi, we're not dead yet" progress reports always worries me. I'm in worse shape because the version of 2.0 I most wish for would be for FOG(R).
A digital version of FoG(R) would need to be an entirely new game, not just an upgrade of FoG. The compromises made for the digital version of FoG form the TT rules would completely lose the differences in the FoG(R) TT rules to represent the changes in warfare in the Renaissance.
Thanks for your work on this. I have a few observations on my early impressions of the game...
1) Whilst melée combat get a POA for flanking an engaged unit, impact combat does not. I have noticed many flank attacks on an engaged unit getting bounced, sometimes quite badly. This seems odd, as the engaged unit will have its hands full already, and will be tactically disadvantaged when hit by a new unit. Historically, being hit in the flank (and especially rear) was usually fatal in ancient warfare. Impact combat should get an attackers POA like melée.
2) Elephants should lose their melée POA against "Drilled, Superior, Swordsmen" Heavy Foot, since these (typically legionaries) would usually let the elephants through the formation then attack them. Otherwise it should stay the same due to the trample effect with troops unable to get out of the way. Heavy Chariots should be treated similarly, but the melée POA exclusion should apply to "Drilled, Superior, Swordsmen" Heavy Foot, (typically legionaries) for the same reason.
3) Flanked engaged units should be able to be shot in the rear. Whilst stockwellpete has reasonably pointed out that some would turn to face (and thus benefit from shields), it would not stop shooters from engaging the unit that way. Atm some lights can charge the rear, but they usually get fragged because they are not primarily hand to hand troops. Historically, if they got around flanks they would get close to shoot, but not enough to get to grips with the enemy. There is definitely a case to add shooting into the flank/rear of an engaged unit. Whether there should be an additional POA for lack/insuffucient shields is open to debate.
4) There can be quite a disparity of results between similarly armed and accoutred forces facing each others fronts. This should be nerfed to avoid the extreme results. Given reasonably equal forces facing each other, it would be more likely for the cracks to start on the flanks leading to ultimate disaster, as history shows was usually the case.
I hope that is helpful. Whilst I don't have an issue with the random element, I think at present it yields too many extreme results, which are not borne out either by logic or historical precedent, which then undermines the proper use of tactics in the game.
I should also add that LF defending difficult terrain (evade off) get hammered by other troops. Historically, defending difficult terrain was something they were good at even against troop types that ordinarily would flatten them (the Lithuanians vs the Teutonic Knights at the battle of Saule, or Greek Light troops at Thermoplylae 279BC vs the Galatian HF). LF should be more resilient when defending in/out of difficult terrain because historically they were good at defending it. With FoG atm, you might survive impact defending difficult terrain, but next turn in melée you usually get trashed. Obviously any benefit for defending light troops should not apply where other lights, or light medium infantry attack (LMI - no more than protected MF, perhaps with Javelin/Light spear?)
Thinking more on the matter of attacking engaged enemies in flank. I'm seeing a lot of my own and opponents too getting painful results when attacking an already engaged enemy. It looks as though the attacking flanker is treated as though the combat between it is pure impact, at least for the first round. In fact the scenario should see the impetus of impact in favour of the attacking flanker, whereas the unit attacked, being already engaged in melée should use the melée POA factors. If that can be integrated into the new system, I think you are more likely to see less of the disproportionate losses to the flanking unit, and more to the defender, essentially giving a more realistic, and less bizarre result to flanking attacks.
In fact this resolution should be the case for all impact attacks after the first, including a subsequent frontal attack whilst engaged, since the defender is already in melée mode.
The exception to this would be where multiple defenders share a common front, in which case the unengaged neighbouring unit would have to be engaged as a normal impact fight. Once the adjacent units in the battleline have each had an impact attack, then all subsequent attacks should be based on the impact combat rules for the attacker, and the return damage being governed by melée combat rules for the defender.
Essentially, the maximum times a unit could engage in impact combat will be once, and potentially up to 5 melée attacks (i.e. one per remaining hexside). From a programming point of view it is just necessary to set a flag for impact that turn. If it =1, then no more impact combat is allowed by that unit, all other combats by default must be melée (since the shock of impact has already occurred).
Whilst in melée flank attacks already have a -ve POA for the defender under the melée combat rules, and similarly for rear attacks, which are better modeled by the present game engine (save for the invariable result for light infantry who are more likely to shoot at close range into the rear of a unit, unless it is already fragmented - see my previous post).
I have just finished a classical battle between hoplites. It got me thinking about the casualties in frontal impact and melée between steady HF/MF (good order foot). The casualties are too extreme in this context, hoplites/pikes/spears etc would push and shove for a long time until the cohesion went and they broke, which is when the real killing began. I have been seeing frequently up to 10:1 ratios of casualties e.g 3:30 in the initial impact between eually armed and armoured troops. It doesn't make sense. There should be a more gradual deterioration, rather than such casualties - these are not knights successfully charging MF with javelins or suchlike. The pattern of defeat for the spears facing similar should be a breakdown from the flanks spreading to the centre, as flanking units are flanked themselves. Clearly the variation in the centre of the line will be based more on training/armour, which will give the pressure for cohesion hits, but the present distribution of casualties in pretty equal circumstances doesn't reflect either reality nor history.
I've written about this elsewhere recently but on the map previews one can't tell the difference between gentle and steep hills. The difference between these terrain types has huge implifications for the battle and the disordering effect they have for different troop types. It's easy to make the wrong map choice because of this lack of clear differentiation in the map previews.
There could even be a graphical key to the different colours represented on the preview map. This would be especially helpful to the newer players. Even as an experienced player I can't remember whether grey represents a gully or impassable hills, as one example of several. An alternative, I suppose, would be that one could click and view the actual available maps before choosing one.
Brilliant idea. I had this same problem the other day. My Avar (cavalry) army thought they were fighting in an open battleground with gentle hills, which turned out to be steep when the battle started - much to my horror!
