I was wondering, for those who might know; how does Field of Glory compare to Great Battles?
For those wondering, Great Battles Collector's Edition is on GoG
I've been feeling like a tactical battle game and came across both Great Battles and Field of Glory.
Being tight on money I went with Great Battles for now, but have my eye fixed on Field of Glory.
I really wish there was a demo for it though.
So far in Great Battles the game is super difficult, the AI seems very good, whereas I hear the AI is not so good in Field of Glory, but is being worked on (?)
Or is the AI better in the latest beta patch now?
My main worry is if I buy Field of Glory and it turns out to be a weak game in comparison to Great Battles.
So can anyone confirm or deny my fear?
Thanks,
Vincent
Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
It's been a long time since I played Great Battles. I remember enjoying it very much, but, eventually got to the point where I could beat the AI every time and got tired of it.
The same is true of FOG. The AI may give you a challenge as you figure out the rules and develop tactics, but, you will eventually get to the point where you best it every time. But, every FOG player will tell you the same thing - multiplayer is the real strength of the game. Nothing compares to a human opponent. I've been playing multiplayer for a few months now and when you string several victories together and think that you are becoming a good player, one of the top tier players will come along and absolutely crush you and show you how much you don't know yet!
The multiplayer community is very active. Post a game and it will be picked up in within an hour or two. Plus there are leagues and tournaments to join.
The same is true of FOG. The AI may give you a challenge as you figure out the rules and develop tactics, but, you will eventually get to the point where you best it every time. But, every FOG player will tell you the same thing - multiplayer is the real strength of the game. Nothing compares to a human opponent. I've been playing multiplayer for a few months now and when you string several victories together and think that you are becoming a good player, one of the top tier players will come along and absolutely crush you and show you how much you don't know yet!
The multiplayer community is very active. Post a game and it will be picked up in within an hour or two. Plus there are leagues and tournaments to join.
-
Micha63
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:56 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
Thank you for the great battles tip on gog, this old game works great on new systems and looks good. But ok, not to compare with fog, fog is far better from my standpoint.
Purchase fog you will not regret, its great and you have hundreds of usermade scenarios for free.
Purchase fog you will not regret, its great and you have hundreds of usermade scenarios for free.
-
bloodphoenix
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:55 pm
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
NOTE: This post was originally longer, with five detailed points, but I lost some of it when I went to post it, and my log-in had timed out! 
I purchased Great Battles on gog myself, for the sentimental value if nothing else...though I admit the hot-seat option had some appeal.
But I also wanted to see, after years of playing (and loving) FOG, if some of my fond memories of GBoH were accurate.
FOG and GBoH both have their strengths and weaknesses. FOG is without peer in its online multi-player potential - I love the ease of posting and accepting game challenges. The sheer number of army lists available for player use is a big selling point as well, and the ease with which you can create a scenario. There are also huge numbers of player generated scenarios, but I think one of the things the game does best is the
"random battle" of two players where neither the terrain nor the armies is drawn from a historical encounter. The only thing that hinders the potential greatness of this feature, is that the game lacks a "terrain randomizer" capable of creating completely variable maps for each game.
This could be programmed SO EASILY...I wrote a program like that in BASIC for a wargame I was playing back in the 1970's for pete's sake!
GBoH did have a scenario editor available in the Collector's Edition, and players posted an impressive list of scenarios for the game for various historical battles, usually based on scenarios from the Great Battles of History table-top hex and counter wargame. Though there were also some fun alternative-history ones I remember. They also used to run various tournaments and campaigns, much like FOG does. Of course, all those websites are long since defunct as far as I know, so you're now limited to the few historical battles in the games themselves.
Great Battles had a few points that I really see as strengths that would make FOG a better game if emulated:
1. All units did not have an equal rout value.
A light infantry skirmisher unit was worth 1 point (such units were expendable and generally chased off the battlefield more than killed, so they had a tendency to straggle back into camp and rejoin the army after the battle, unless ridden down by cavalry). Light Infantry that was capable of melee combat (like Peltasts) were worth 2 points, as were Elephants (which were much more unreliable/dangerous in that game) and chariots (which were not overpowered as in FOG). For other troops, their rout value was equal to their "Troop Quality" (TQ) rating. What this means is that a unit of Protected Offensive Spears is going to vary in rout point value depending on whether they're Poor, Average, Superior, or Elite. In GBoH, I believe the highest Troop Quality number you ever saw was a 9, just to illustrate how high it could get relative to the single point value of skirmishers. To this was added the detail that Pike Phalanxes were huge, cumbersome units that took up two hexes, and usually took quite a bit of punishment to break...so their value was double their TQ.
To represent the MAJOR impact on ancient armies of a leader falling in battle (the tide of battle was often turned by such events, resulting in the rout of armies that previously had the upper hand) Generals who were killed were worth 5X their "Initiative Rating" a value that was somewhat equivalent to the different levels of Leader in FOG. A one of a kind Leader like Alexander was worth TEN TIMES the number! (Imagine how his army would have reacted if they were all the way in India and he had died at Hydaspes!)
Though this was based on an different set of stats and numbers, it could EASILY be adapted for use in FOG, by simply making the rout value of a unit equal to its purchase point value. That would mean that the loss of your Household Guard Heavy Cavalry would be as important to the army as the loss of 4 or 5 lesser units...as it should be.
2. Units could move/attack in Groups, and for many armies it was harder to move them individually.
This is a problem with FOG that I associate with the transition from table top to computer screen, because on the table-top a "battle-group" is a formation of multiple "stands", and usually much less maneuverable than the battle-groups/units of FOG digital, which effectively operate as one stand independent combat elements. That can tend to give it a much more modern feel. In GBoH, for example, a Roman General could either issue a "group command" or issue orders to individual units equal to his Initiative value. They usually had low Initiative numbers, so would only be able to move, say, 2 or 3 units in individual directions. But he could issue a GROUP order, and an entire line of maybe ten units would march forward in formation! They could be issued movement orders, or be ordered to attack...leading to one of my favorite details in the game...Roman troops would halt and throw pilum before charging the enemy! Each unit carried like 2 javelins for game purposes, and once it used them it had no further missle capability...but this allowed them to inflict losses on the enemy (or disorder them) before melee -
a fair representation of their historic effect that FOG would do well to include. But this use of group movement orders also allowed distinctions to be made between different armies tactical doctrines: in contrast to the Romans, the Carthaginian Leaders could attempt Group Orders, but had a lower chance of carrying them out successfully. At the same time, their Leaders usually had a higher Initiative Rating, and could move more specific units individually...this let them do things like more effectively maneuver cavalry around the Roman flanks.
To briefly reconstruct the last three points that I lost:
3. "Impact Foot" type units that use a thrown weapon just before contact, would actually make a missle attack at one hex range.
I preferred this way of modeling that tactical doctrine, rather than a modifier against certain troop types in Impact and melee.
Reason being, that in FOG terms, you could potentially Disrupt your enemy with pilums before contact, and I think that more accurately represents the real effect they had.
4. GBoH chariots were not over-powered. They could only operate effectively on the flattest, barest terrain. Anything rough might as well have been impassable to them. Compared to Cavalry, they had a horrible turning radius. They were primarily mobile firing platforms for missile troops, being nearly worthless as shock combat units. In fairness, in the days when they were effectively used in this role, Cavalry was in its infancy, and they were mostly conducting their melee attacks against other chariots or some pretty light-weight infantry! As mentioned above, chariots only were worth 2 rout points in GBoH, because they just weren't a big loss, and were unlikely to have much impact, unlike the tanks that are Heavy Chariots in FOG.
5. Elephants were handled better in GBoH in my opinion. Based on everything I've read about War Elephants, their greatest reliable impact on the battlefield were the terror they instilled in humans and horses. Once humans had fought them a few times, and learned what tactics to use, they were able to overcome their terror. But in terms of actual damage done, they were much better on paper than in reality, and I do think that FOG models this part well. But I think what would be good would be to change the perception of what it means when a unit of war elephants "rout". For humans, this means that their morale breaks, and they flee. For elephants, rather than "routing" it should probably be thought of as "going out of control". Sometimes they responded to injury and frightening situations by panicking and trying to escape the threat, but they didn't do it in the same way as a human would. They would stampede. And when one or more 10,000 pound animals stampede,
they don't go around clumps of beings that weigh 200 pounds. They send them flying like bowling pins. Sometimes, rather than panicking and stampeding, they would become enraged and go berserk, ignoring the orders of their mahout and indiscriminately attacking whoever they felt like attacking. In GBoH, then, war elephants that "routed" would move about the board for 2 or 3 turns, in a random direction each turn, until they either left the map or were killed (because units they contacted wouldn't be trampled docilely, they would fight them, potentially killing the war elephant unit). As they careened around the map, they could easily set off chain reactions, routing other elephants who would join the stampede. And THAT matches descriptions of period accounts of the sort of disasters that led leaders to stop using war elephants in armies...
I purchased Great Battles on gog myself, for the sentimental value if nothing else...though I admit the hot-seat option had some appeal.
But I also wanted to see, after years of playing (and loving) FOG, if some of my fond memories of GBoH were accurate.
FOG and GBoH both have their strengths and weaknesses. FOG is without peer in its online multi-player potential - I love the ease of posting and accepting game challenges. The sheer number of army lists available for player use is a big selling point as well, and the ease with which you can create a scenario. There are also huge numbers of player generated scenarios, but I think one of the things the game does best is the
"random battle" of two players where neither the terrain nor the armies is drawn from a historical encounter. The only thing that hinders the potential greatness of this feature, is that the game lacks a "terrain randomizer" capable of creating completely variable maps for each game.
This could be programmed SO EASILY...I wrote a program like that in BASIC for a wargame I was playing back in the 1970's for pete's sake!
GBoH did have a scenario editor available in the Collector's Edition, and players posted an impressive list of scenarios for the game for various historical battles, usually based on scenarios from the Great Battles of History table-top hex and counter wargame. Though there were also some fun alternative-history ones I remember. They also used to run various tournaments and campaigns, much like FOG does. Of course, all those websites are long since defunct as far as I know, so you're now limited to the few historical battles in the games themselves.
Great Battles had a few points that I really see as strengths that would make FOG a better game if emulated:
1. All units did not have an equal rout value.
A light infantry skirmisher unit was worth 1 point (such units were expendable and generally chased off the battlefield more than killed, so they had a tendency to straggle back into camp and rejoin the army after the battle, unless ridden down by cavalry). Light Infantry that was capable of melee combat (like Peltasts) were worth 2 points, as were Elephants (which were much more unreliable/dangerous in that game) and chariots (which were not overpowered as in FOG). For other troops, their rout value was equal to their "Troop Quality" (TQ) rating. What this means is that a unit of Protected Offensive Spears is going to vary in rout point value depending on whether they're Poor, Average, Superior, or Elite. In GBoH, I believe the highest Troop Quality number you ever saw was a 9, just to illustrate how high it could get relative to the single point value of skirmishers. To this was added the detail that Pike Phalanxes were huge, cumbersome units that took up two hexes, and usually took quite a bit of punishment to break...so their value was double their TQ.
To represent the MAJOR impact on ancient armies of a leader falling in battle (the tide of battle was often turned by such events, resulting in the rout of armies that previously had the upper hand) Generals who were killed were worth 5X their "Initiative Rating" a value that was somewhat equivalent to the different levels of Leader in FOG. A one of a kind Leader like Alexander was worth TEN TIMES the number! (Imagine how his army would have reacted if they were all the way in India and he had died at Hydaspes!)
Though this was based on an different set of stats and numbers, it could EASILY be adapted for use in FOG, by simply making the rout value of a unit equal to its purchase point value. That would mean that the loss of your Household Guard Heavy Cavalry would be as important to the army as the loss of 4 or 5 lesser units...as it should be.
2. Units could move/attack in Groups, and for many armies it was harder to move them individually.
This is a problem with FOG that I associate with the transition from table top to computer screen, because on the table-top a "battle-group" is a formation of multiple "stands", and usually much less maneuverable than the battle-groups/units of FOG digital, which effectively operate as one stand independent combat elements. That can tend to give it a much more modern feel. In GBoH, for example, a Roman General could either issue a "group command" or issue orders to individual units equal to his Initiative value. They usually had low Initiative numbers, so would only be able to move, say, 2 or 3 units in individual directions. But he could issue a GROUP order, and an entire line of maybe ten units would march forward in formation! They could be issued movement orders, or be ordered to attack...leading to one of my favorite details in the game...Roman troops would halt and throw pilum before charging the enemy! Each unit carried like 2 javelins for game purposes, and once it used them it had no further missle capability...but this allowed them to inflict losses on the enemy (or disorder them) before melee -
a fair representation of their historic effect that FOG would do well to include. But this use of group movement orders also allowed distinctions to be made between different armies tactical doctrines: in contrast to the Romans, the Carthaginian Leaders could attempt Group Orders, but had a lower chance of carrying them out successfully. At the same time, their Leaders usually had a higher Initiative Rating, and could move more specific units individually...this let them do things like more effectively maneuver cavalry around the Roman flanks.
To briefly reconstruct the last three points that I lost:
3. "Impact Foot" type units that use a thrown weapon just before contact, would actually make a missle attack at one hex range.
I preferred this way of modeling that tactical doctrine, rather than a modifier against certain troop types in Impact and melee.
Reason being, that in FOG terms, you could potentially Disrupt your enemy with pilums before contact, and I think that more accurately represents the real effect they had.
4. GBoH chariots were not over-powered. They could only operate effectively on the flattest, barest terrain. Anything rough might as well have been impassable to them. Compared to Cavalry, they had a horrible turning radius. They were primarily mobile firing platforms for missile troops, being nearly worthless as shock combat units. In fairness, in the days when they were effectively used in this role, Cavalry was in its infancy, and they were mostly conducting their melee attacks against other chariots or some pretty light-weight infantry! As mentioned above, chariots only were worth 2 rout points in GBoH, because they just weren't a big loss, and were unlikely to have much impact, unlike the tanks that are Heavy Chariots in FOG.
5. Elephants were handled better in GBoH in my opinion. Based on everything I've read about War Elephants, their greatest reliable impact on the battlefield were the terror they instilled in humans and horses. Once humans had fought them a few times, and learned what tactics to use, they were able to overcome their terror. But in terms of actual damage done, they were much better on paper than in reality, and I do think that FOG models this part well. But I think what would be good would be to change the perception of what it means when a unit of war elephants "rout". For humans, this means that their morale breaks, and they flee. For elephants, rather than "routing" it should probably be thought of as "going out of control". Sometimes they responded to injury and frightening situations by panicking and trying to escape the threat, but they didn't do it in the same way as a human would. They would stampede. And when one or more 10,000 pound animals stampede,
they don't go around clumps of beings that weigh 200 pounds. They send them flying like bowling pins. Sometimes, rather than panicking and stampeding, they would become enraged and go berserk, ignoring the orders of their mahout and indiscriminately attacking whoever they felt like attacking. In GBoH, then, war elephants that "routed" would move about the board for 2 or 3 turns, in a random direction each turn, until they either left the map or were killed (because units they contacted wouldn't be trampled docilely, they would fight them, potentially killing the war elephant unit). As they careened around the map, they could easily set off chain reactions, routing other elephants who would join the stampede. And THAT matches descriptions of period accounts of the sort of disasters that led leaders to stop using war elephants in armies...
-
Brindlebane
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:23 pm
- Location: Northants,Uk
- Contact:
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
Nice one,just bought this.Exactly what i was looking for,for this laptop.Something to play whilst waiting for FOG turns.Cheers.
Molon labe!
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
>>My main worry is if I buy Field of Glory and it turns out to be a weak game in comparison to Great Battles.
FoG only works as a multi-player game. The AI is so poor that once you've mastered the basics - within a few weeks - you'll find that games against it are frustrating and, in the end, quite pointless.
As I understand it there are NO plans to address the AI's shortcomings in the FoG rewrite - except perhaps in the distant future.
Multiplayer games have their own frustrations as the people who've stuck with FoG tend to be long-term veterans who know the peculiarities of the program inside out.
FoG only works as a multi-player game. The AI is so poor that once you've mastered the basics - within a few weeks - you'll find that games against it are frustrating and, in the end, quite pointless.
As I understand it there are NO plans to address the AI's shortcomings in the FoG rewrite - except perhaps in the distant future.
Multiplayer games have their own frustrations as the people who've stuck with FoG tend to be long-term veterans who know the peculiarities of the program inside out.
-
Micha63
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:56 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
If you find a Scenario is to easy you have Settings to make it harder, you can give the pc an advance and yourselve an handycap.
The ai is not as smart as an human, thats Logical.
But the Storys here about an total stupid ai are feritales, belive me.
The mainintend of this storys is to find more People for fog onlinegaming.
I have play"d countless games against the ai and i lost many and had always fun.
The ai is not as smart as an human, thats Logical.
But the Storys here about an total stupid ai are feritales, belive me.
The mainintend of this storys is to find more People for fog onlinegaming.
I have play"d countless games against the ai and i lost many and had always fun.
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
Micha, I don't hold any brief to encourage more online gaming - I don't do multiplayer as you'll have seen from my post (if you had read it properly). The AI isn't just weak in FoG - it does incredibly stupid things, and it does them all the time. Like leaving its units with their flank/rear turned towards the HP's (human player's) troops, so they can be routed easily next turn. Like leaving all its weak troops in defensive mode near its baseline (even if they make up a third of its army). Like allowing a whole wing to be tricked by a single HP unit into breaking formation. These are just random examples off the top of my head. The FoG AI seems to be an afterthought, not an integral part of the game.
The other side of the coin is that in order to enjoy multiplayer you need to devote an awful lot of time to getting on top of the detail of the program and its peculiarities. Attempt to apply historical tactics per se and you'll be slaughtered. If you're happy to spend countless game sessions getting thumped as part of a long and steep learning curve, then fine. Otherwise, forget it.
These faults are evidenced in the decline of the game. Regular players have dropped out of the loop, promised releases of new army sets (eg Wolves from the Sea) haven't happened and are not likely to, and the game is only being updated to make it portable to new devices (and even that is being done primarily as a labour of love). QED.
The other side of the coin is that in order to enjoy multiplayer you need to devote an awful lot of time to getting on top of the detail of the program and its peculiarities. Attempt to apply historical tactics per se and you'll be slaughtered. If you're happy to spend countless game sessions getting thumped as part of a long and steep learning curve, then fine. Otherwise, forget it.
These faults are evidenced in the decline of the game. Regular players have dropped out of the loop, promised releases of new army sets (eg Wolves from the Sea) haven't happened and are not likely to, and the game is only being updated to make it portable to new devices (and even that is being done primarily as a labour of love). QED.
-
Brindlebane
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:23 pm
- Location: Northants,Uk
- Contact:
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
FOG is a digital version of table top wargaming,multiplayer is where it shines against a human opponent.It's not like the Total Bollocks franchise,and that is a single player game,and lets be honest the ai totally sucks in that.The problem with this game is the dice,some rolls are totally ridiculous but those of us that play it,already know that.Take into account,that in some battles it's the dice that beat you and not your opponent and it's a fine MP game.Annoying at times but fun.
Molon labe!
-
TheGrayMouser
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
There are ways to make the AI more challenging in FOG, and any other game vs an AIvince0018 wrote:I was wondering, for those who might know; how does Field of Glory compare to Great Battles?
For those wondering, Great Battles Collector's Edition is on GoG
I've been feeling like a tactical battle game and came across both Great Battles and Field of Glory.
Being tight on money I went with Great Battles for now, but have my eye fixed on Field of Glory.
I really wish there was a demo for it though.
So far in Great Battles the game is super difficult, the AI seems very good, whereas I hear the AI is not so good in Field of Glory, but is being worked on (?)
Or is the AI better in the latest beta patch now?
My main worry is if I buy Field of Glory and it turns out to be a weak game in comparison to Great Battles.
So can anyone confirm or deny my fear?
Thanks,
Vincent
*don't play with double moves on, the AI does not handle that too well
*play historically, move formations as opposed to squeezing every advantage you can by moving individual units with the intent to change facings in every possible way to guarantee rear hits on the AI's units etc
*deploy historically, don't intermingle pike units with lancers and hem in the ai that cant assail such a formation except with crippling POA disadvantages.
*use the scenario editor to create tough battles by having rear echelon fixed troops that beef up the AI BP level (just don't attack them as that would defeat the point.)
*light foot: use em historically at the opening of the battle then bring em to the flanks. Don't send them on long range commando style missions with the intent to trick the AI into chasing them with its best cavalry units, or to line up "rear hits" with heavier units. Even modern units w radios could not coordinate that well.... At the same time don't use every trick in the book to entrap the AI lights.
*the AI has no concept of defend or attack, it basically comes at you. Assume every battle you fight is a meeting engagement and go on out to meet the AI in fair battle
The GBOH games were good but I doudt the AI was very good. The scenarios that came w the games often were hard because the armies literally were on top of each other at game start, leaving the player few options to brilliantly outmaneuver the AI. many had extremely short time limits as well.
Apologies to the OP, I realize a lot of what I said likely wont make much sense unless you are already familiar w the game.
That being said, no the AI is not great, but many of the original scenarios that came with the game can be quite hard. I have no idea once the new version comes out how much the AI will be changed, however, the new version will likely have a lot more one can do with the editor, thus allowing more challenging battles to be made.
-
Igorputski
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:08 pm
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
Don't let Micha fool you, FOG has one of the worst ancient battle ai's I've ever played against and I've played against most all of them. In comparison to GBotA it is way DOWN on the list as the MAJORITY of others have told you. For multiplayer FOG works but otherwise they just tacked on an ai to say it has an ai but challenging the FOG ai IS NOT, never was and never will be.
The best ancients ai game out there is still "Centurion:Defender of Rome" game. It's an old DOS game but by far is the best. I never had so much fun and fear as I did playing it and it also comes with gladiatorial fights and chariot races you can either bet on or drive the chariots yourself. If you think Quadrava (sp probably) is great wait till you play this one. (NOTE) the game is like the TW games in the sense it's turn based but the other things like the battles and the fights and races are in real time. The best of both worlds.
The best ancients ai game out there is still "Centurion:Defender of Rome" game. It's an old DOS game but by far is the best. I never had so much fun and fear as I did playing it and it also comes with gladiatorial fights and chariot races you can either bet on or drive the chariots yourself. If you think Quadrava (sp probably) is great wait till you play this one. (NOTE) the game is like the TW games in the sense it's turn based but the other things like the battles and the fights and races are in real time. The best of both worlds.
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
There are lots of good ideas in there GrayMouser, but I think that your final point - that the AI "basically comes at you" - is the crux of the problem. The only real solution, IMHO, is to keep upping the number of troops at the AI's disposal. In tabletop solo wargaming terms, this is what we would call a 'Zombie' game. Think hordes of zombies staggering towards you without rhyme or reason, as per those old George Romero movies, and wearing you down through sheer attrition. Your opponent (whether a notional tabletop 'non player general' or a really naff AI like FoG's) can be given a huge numerical advantage, and in that sense there is a chance it will beat you no matter how dumb it is, particularly if people also adopt the suggestions you've listed. Now, that can be fun for the odd game, but it's really not a simulation of ancient warfare. Neither is it an interesting challenge that will keep you coming back for more. So while you can try to mitigate the AI's woeful shortcomings, in the end you're left with a very limited game that soon loses its appeal.TheGrayMouser wrote:
There are ways to make the AI more challenging in FOG, and any other game vs an AI
*don't play with double moves on, the AI does not handle that too well
*play historically, move formations as opposed to squeezing every advantage you can by moving individual units with the intent to change facings in every possible way to guarantee rear hits on the AI's units etc
*deploy historically, don't intermingle pike units with lancers and hem in the ai that cant assail such a formation except with crippling POA disadvantages.
*use the scenario editor to create tough battles by having rear echelon fixed troops that beef up the AI BP level (just don't attack them as that would defeat the point.)
*light foot: use em historically at the opening of the battle then bring em to the flanks. Don't send them on long range commando style missions with the intent to trick the AI into chasing them with its best cavalry units, or to line up "rear hits" with heavier units. Even modern units w radios could not coordinate that well.... At the same time don't use every trick in the book to entrap the AI lights.
*the AI has no concept of defend or attack, it basically comes at you. Assume every battle you fight is a meeting engagement and go on out to meet the AI in fair battle
Fortunately the very fine Pike & Shot release, which uses the Battle Academy engine, may signal a better way forward. RBS and the developers are already considering which period to move into next, and ancients/medieval is a real possibility given RBS's background. I'd suggest that any newcomer to these games who aims to play primarily solo, rather than against human opponents, goes down the Pike & Shot route instead.
Cheers,
Miletus.
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls -
just answer the door already!"
Miletus.
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls -
just answer the door already!"
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
GBCE was the best ancient tactical wargame for a long while, and in some aspects, it still is. Yet, it has a lot of shortcomings, and believe me when I say no one knows them better than myself!. Because in case you're not aware of the fact, I'm the person which did the only unofficial game fix for it, fixing some bugs and disabling the momentum mechanics after I-Magic dropped them dead in the water (yes, the same adonys guy!).
FoG(U) is way better than FoG(RB), and it will be even better. And you must be aware that you're getting it, with all the effort it includes, as a free update to your current FoG(RB). And because of this, we couldn't update everything. While FoG(U) AI's is slightly better than FoG(RB)'s one, this is only a basic AI, which will constantly be extended with each upcoming addon after game's release. And you also should take note that FoG(U) is a multiplatform game (to be released on Windows, OSX, iOS and Android), and therefore with a perspective of greatly enlarging the current players base.
FoG(U) is way better than FoG(RB), and it will be even better. And you must be aware that you're getting it, with all the effort it includes, as a free update to your current FoG(RB). And because of this, we couldn't update everything. While FoG(U) AI's is slightly better than FoG(RB)'s one, this is only a basic AI, which will constantly be extended with each upcoming addon after game's release. And you also should take note that FoG(U) is a multiplatform game (to be released on Windows, OSX, iOS and Android), and therefore with a perspective of greatly enlarging the current players base.
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
the only ai worth playing against is that of a chess game. at least you're sure there's nothing funny about some of the combat results... no ai will ever outmaneuver a competent human player in a wargame. but no matter, since i harken back to the old days of board wargames, i mostly enjoy playing hot seat to simulate and study history. FoG with its flexible editor and engine is superb in that respect. pike and shot doesn't stand a chance here. the early renaissance scenarios that are made with FoG play out way better historically than those from pike and shot. it's a matter of what you want your game to be for you.
Re: Compared to Great Battles Collector's Edition?
Wow!cothyso wrote:...I'm the person which did the only unofficial game fix for it, fixing some bugs and disabling the momentum mechanics after I-Magic dropped them dead in the water (yes, the same adonys guy!).
I no longer have those games installed, but I do still have those patch files you created saved just in case...kilroy