What if...!!!

[spedius01]

Ave,

What if....

there were some way to make ALL battles in both campaigns - NO OBJECTIVES!!!

Pause here for a second and think of the ramifications of that simple statement!!

No more "I was just about to administer the culmination of an elaborate series of manoeuvres" when "the mission is accomplished" message comes up and you're biting the desk in frustration. No massive xp score, just the minimum required to complete the scenario. Think of all the possibilities for advancement if a patch were available to "switch off" the conditions for victory connected to each scenario. Each battle would be "fought to a finish", which, in some cases, could be painful. What follows below is one example of many similar experiences.

I've just completed the Battle of Alalia, #34 in the Roman campaign. The conditions for victory are: "Kill 200 enemy. Take less than 160 casualties. The enemy General must be killed". I'd positioned my two scout light cavalry units behind the enemy army and they were already zooming in to clobber the enemy skirmishers when, you've guessed it, up came the above message. Talk about biting the desk, I think I was about ready to attack my PC with a samurai sword. Very, very frustrating!!

What if....

there were an "arena" where you could pit one unit against another. To try out promotion and equipment options. To judge the effect of decisions that you might have cause to make during the game.

What if....

there were a "drill square" where you could train your squads with all manner of intricate movements, ie: direction and formation changes.

Think about it!!

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

[marcusthegreat]

I find some of the Objectives stupid at times but it's still a good game. I Like your drill square and arena ideas and I still hope for a 'sandbox' mode. For an example of stupid objectives take the battle 'a small victory'

Kill 300 enemy and take less then 120 casulaties. I find that Impossible to achieve.

[spedius01]

I find some of the Objectives stupid at times but it's still a good game. I Like your drill square and arena ideas and I still hope for a 'sandbox' mode. For an example of stupid objectives take the battle 'a small victory'

Kill 300 enemy and take less then 120 casulaties. I find that Impossible to achieve.

Ave marcusthegreat,

I'm pleased that you like my ideas, I agree with you it IS a good game. (What is a "sandbox" mode?)

You have my sympathies, scenario #55 is a tough one. IIRC the enemy has 17 squads with 709 men and you are allowed 20 squads maximum. What is the composition of your army and what tactics are you employing? Why are you finding it so hard to complete?

Here are some more what ifs.

What if....

you could dismount or train some of your cavalry to fight in rough terrain, you could have all cavalry armies.

What if....

you could mount some of your infantry, you could increase your mobility.

Think about it!!!

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

[miki]

I would be more than happy with just one single (and easy to do, I hope) thing: To be able to play both armies in both campaigns. That is, the ability to choose a Roman core in the Celtic campaign, and Celtic units as the core in the Roman campaign...

Go figure, 70 of the hardest battles for your warriors (I wold pay to play Dog's Head with a Celtic core)...

[spedius01]

I would be more than happy with just one single (and easy to do, I hope) thing: To be able to play both armies in both campaigns. That is, the ability to choose a Roman core in the Celtic campaign, and Celtic units as the core in the Roman campaign...

Go figure, 70 of the hardest battles for your warriors (I would pay to play Dog's Head with a Celtic core)...

Ave miki,

That is an excellent "What if".

I would also like to be able to interchange armies between the two campaigns. Just imagine the possibilities of racking up mammoth xp (no pun intended for you "dumbo" lovers). Yes Duncan, you know I mean you!!!

What if...

all maps were either big or small and you could then choose which one you wanted to fight your battle on. You could either have space in which to manoeuvre or, if you prefered it, have a straight punch-up.

Think about it!!!

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

[fatetriarrii]

Sandbox mode is a good idea, and would be easy too, I believe.

You just add a button that allows the player to choose a multiplayer map and, with the aide of the pause button, build and control both armies. That would be useful for trying out tactics.

[pipfromslitherine]

Although not as easy as you might think...

Implementing a feature properly takes quite a lot of time and testing. We have a long list that we would love to add, but we also need to crack on with our next games too! Woe...

Cheers

Pip

[spedius01]

Although not as easy as you might think...

Implementing a feature properly takes quite a lot of time and testing. We have a long list that we would love to add, but we also need to crack on with our next games too! Woe...

Cheers

Pip

Ave pip,

Perhaps the title of this topic should have been "If only", more apt wouldn't you say?

Get us drooling PLEASE, what is the mysterious "long list that we would love to add"?

Details please?

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

[Redpossum]

Or tell us what's the next game you're "cracking on" with?

[pipfromslitherine]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. And frankly I fly enough miles as it is...

Cheers

Pip

[spedius01]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. And frankly I fly enough miles as it is... ;)

Cheers

Pip

Ave pip,

We wouldn't want that.

What if...

you could record your battles and then play them back, again and again. You could analyse where you went wrong and improve or amend your tactics. Wouldn't that be something?

Think about it!!!

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

[honvedseg]

How about a strategist's nightmare, the ability to "record" your setup and orders, then play the other side of the same scenario against your own tactics?

...or how about a "sandbox" mode where you could pick a map and set up both armies, to try different tactics and compare promotions, basically a "multiplayer" mode with one person running both sides?

... or ultimately, a revised set of editing tools to create new maps, campaigns, and units??? I'd ALMOST be willing to have this one delay Legion II, or whatever the next project will be, but not quite.

[spedius01]

How about a strategist's nightmare, the ability to "record" your setup and orders, then play the other side of the same scenario against your own tactics?

...or how about a "sandbox" mode where you could pick a map and set up both armies, to try different tactics and compare promotions, basically a "multiplayer" mode with one person running both sides?

... or ultimately, a revised set of editing tools to create new maps, campaigns, and units??? I'd ALMOST be willing to have this one delay Legion II, or whatever the next project will be, but not quite.

Ave honvedseg,

Three very desirable "What if"s.

You're right about your first item being a "strategist's nightmare", that could be a bit too revealing.

The "sandbox" mode is an interesting concept. Is it something you've experienced in another game?

I think I would forego any new game if the last item were available. You could really have some creative fun with that one. I'm imagining unlimited scenarios, limitless troop types, no objectives, all "fight-to-the-finish" battles, with the ability to swap scenarios with other members or post them to the Forum. That would really be something.

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

[tora_tora_tora]

what if terrain affects unit's moving speed(if it already affects, sorry I cannot find it out),

what if archers climb on the castle's wall (there are several maps which is out of bound) and shoot down,

what if there are automatons wait in lobby, and somehow play with,
and choose its type, straightforward guy, tenacious tactician, celt's fanatics lover, dumbo lover, archer heavy and so on.

what if slingers, mounted archers, camel riders, naptha throwers(so new unit, new throwing units with different range and power!) one can choose.

[levani]

AVE TRIBUNES!
I'd really like to add some "what if"s

"WHAT IF" player could organize the army by himself, I mean player could recruit pheasants at first then choose wheather to give them gladius(roman sword) or celtic long sword or georgian "javardan"s, could give them metal or chain armour or even leather armour. Could choose there formations like "turtoise formation" and many other.
think about it.
cheers
levani

[lord_ley]

If only other criterias than terrain and skill path counted! What if you could have Phalanxes kick cavalry asses and archer cavalry massacre heavy nfantry. What if you could destroy a unit from all sides and angle of attack influence drop of morale. What if you could actually rally a routed unit. What if light infantry could have an ambush mode being invisible to other units untill it fell on them. What if we had Lancers and artillery, trench digging units so you coud have siege scenarios or at least "storm an encampement". What if in the multiplayer mode you could have different types of battles for example raid the ennemy destroying X number of his troops while losing only Y number of your own (your uchoce of units being limited etc) or steal the standard or any other variations... What if teams coulsd fght each other instead of just one on one( the armies in the field being so vast one mind couldn't hold it al...)
What if finally campaign and multiplayer molded together to form a new Arena...


(That was way of the top.... )

[sum1won]

Well,flankindoesaveabonusofsorts,Ivefound.Itappearstocomeundertoit

EDIT:Okay,mykeyboardjustdied

[fatetriarrii]

it does, the manual reads:

"... If a squad loses formation in battle from moving across disruptive terrain, or is inter-penetrated by another squad, it will lose COHESION.

"A major loss of cohesion will occur if a squad is attacked in the flank, more especially if it is fighting to the front as well."

[lord_ley]

I have seen my Veterans attacked on their flank by Praetrians and i still wiped them out... so much for loss of cohesion!!! By the way I ve never seen the word cohesion attached to any skill or capacity or anything. Maybe it means morale but then why not name it morale? Slitherine if you can solve my puzzle please do.

[tora_tora_tora]

It seems their are many hidden parameters in Legion Arena's battle engine.
Morale and cohort is the apparant ones.　One can see morale in unit's parameters and check the status on promotion screen.
And cohort is mentioned in the manual. According to manual, chort and morale is different from each other, though the relationship
between them is vague.
It seems cohort is unfluenced by how good their formation is disiplined, and how many casualities they got sustained.
So it seems to me it affects how effectively the unit fights.