Choosing armies in MP skirmish battles (like FoG I)

[the_iron_duke]

The most popular format for multiplayer games in FoG I is not available in FoG II, although it does contain other formats, like Pot Luck.

In this particular FoG I format, each player would pick the army they wanted to play with, but would do so without knowledge of what army their opponent was going to use. Is this format going to be included in FoG II in the future?

Of the current formats in FoG II, one is good for setting up authentic historical match-ups, while the other's randomness offers something different. I think the format of both players going into battle with armies they've picked themselves and want to do battle with should also be available to play, as it was before. It also removes any element of bias that one gets by having one player choosing both sides' armies.

I think there are a couple of things that need to be taken into consideration if implementing this format.

Maps

Should players have any influence on what maps will be played on? If yes, then perhaps there could be a choice at battle set-up.

Maybe like this example:

Side 1 chooses Arabs. They get to choose from Desert and Middle-Eastern Agricultural (and could possibly throw in other Middle-Eastern map schemes). Then, say, Side 2 chooses Saka, which can play on Steppes map and one or more of the Middle-Eastern maps.

Each player would choose a map and it would then be a 50/50 random which map would be used.

If the players didn't have any choice on which map, then it could be done automatically using the same system above but with RNG making the choices rather than the human.

Date and Geographical filters

The person setting up the game could choose whether to use these filters. If these filters were being used, then it would list in the mouseover tooltip the armies that were available to choose from by the player thinking of picking up the game. Some scenarios in the Accept Challenge Lobby have many paragraphs of text in their mouseovers, so space shouldn't be an issue.

EDIT: If going down the RNG route for maps, then there could be weightings to different terrains. For example, Saka might have between 2 and 4 maps to choose from (and I think everyone should have the same number of maps to choose from), but their favoured map would be Steppes, which would have a higher weighting when the RNG was selecting map, increasing the probability of it being chosen.

[TheGrayMouser]

Honestly, I am so much happier with the way it is in FOG2 and P&S. You cant call a bias when you can set up open matches with exact line ups you chose, or accept open challenges where you can see same. To spice things up you can play pot luck both sides and ( not 100% sure) I believe you can set only one side to pot luck.

In FOG1 if you declared your army you had to "worry" about your opponent building a designer made army to specifically squeeze every advantage over your declared one. One famous player had a name for this, "The ambush". On the other hand I don't know how many times when one hid the army, your opponent's would be such an utter mismatch that neither was really happy.
It could be fun and there was a huge amount of gamesmanship involved, but again, this way to me at least seems much more relaxed and gentlemanly.

For what its worth I would have no objection for such an option to be added, although I dont believe this engine is equipped to replicate how the DAG system worked in FOG1

[hjc]

I do like the ideas you have for map selection. Many years ago my friends and I played a set of Napoleonic rules where the defender got to choose to place the first two pieces of terrain on the table (e.g. hills) then the attacker chose one, and so on. This worked well to present a battlefield that seemed a realistic location for both sides to have accepted battle.

[the_iron_duke]

In FOG1 if you declared your army you had to "worry" about your opponent building a designer made army to specifically squeeze every advantage over your declared one. One famous player had a name for this, "The ambush". On the other hand I don't know how many times when one hid the army, your opponent's would be such an utter mismatch that neither was really happy.

You aren't describing the format I'm talking about. You are describing the same format with the box "Show army name" box left ticked, so the person taking your challenge knew exactly what your army was and could pick any army to take it on, thus exploiting its weaknesses. I am talking about the format with the "Show army name" box unticked, so the person accepting the challenge didn't know what army the person setting up the game had chosen.

[TheGrayMouser]

In FOG1 if you declared your army you had to "worry" about your opponent building a designer made army to specifically squeeze every advantage over your declared one. One famous player had a name for this, "The ambush". On the other hand I don't know how many times when one hid the army, your opponent's would be such an utter mismatch that neither was really happy.

You aren't describing the format I'm talking about. You are describing the same format with the box "Show army name" box left ticked, so the person taking your challenge knew exactly what your army was and could pick any army to take it on, thus exploiting its weaknesses. I am talking about the format with the "Show army name" box unticked, so the person accepting the challenge didn't know what army the person setting up the game had chosen.

Right.. I think...hhm.. I think maybe you missed the third sentence from what you quoted where I cover what could happen when you hid your army? Anyways, more choice are usually or better, Ijust prefer the new format for open challenges. You can set up what you want, accept what you want or can be completely surprise via Potluck.

[the_iron_duke]

I do like the ideas you have for map selection. Many years ago my friends and I played a set of Napoleonic rules where the defender got to choose to place the first two pieces of terrain on the table (e.g. hills) then the attacker chose one, and so on. This worked well to present a battlefield that seemed a realistic location for both sides to have accepted battle.

In FoG I, one player would get to choose one of four maps to fight on. Which player would get to choose was based on initiative (from number of cavalry or an Inspired General), plus an element of randomness.

[the_iron_duke]

Right.. I think...hhm.. I think maybe you missed the third sentence from what you quoted where I cover what could happen when you hid your army? Anyways, more choice are usually or better, Ijust prefer the new format for open challenges. You can set up what you want, accept what you want or can be completely surprise via Potluck.

The potential for a mismatch is far greater with Pot Luck. Plus, with the "historical"-style ones that can be set up, one will have to go and check the army compositions each time to see whether it looks an even match-up. I like that FoG II has a possibility to set-up "historical"-style games, and I used to make them in FoG I (which required listing them in the Field of Glory forum with a password). I'd also like the "hidden army" format from FoG I, though, and the Date/Geographical possibilities of FoG II, as well as the new map capabilities, would make it even better than before.

[TheGrayMouser]

The potential for a mismatch is far greater with Pot Luck. Plus, with the "historical"-style ones that can be set up, one will have to go and check the army compositions each time to see whether it looks an even match-up. I like that FoG II has a possibility to set-up "historical"-style games, and I used to make them in FoG I (which required listing them in the Field of Glory forum with a password). I'd also like the "hidden army" format from FoG I, though, and the Date/Geographical possibilities of FoG II, as well as the new map capabilities, would make it even better than before.

All true of course. I remember way back when Hexwar seemed to be willing to entertain new mechanics for FOG1 in addons/patches. One of the biggest topics was map selection and deployment. I thought it would be neat if players, pre map selection had to organize their forces in 3-4 "battles" of roughly equal #'s of BG's, and then once the map was chosen, players would deploy alternating "battles" that would be confined to quadrants of the deployment area. LOS ( so you might actually see these deployments as they were laid down) would have been determined from the camps of each side. After all, I think it was pretty rare than an army woke up at dawn and said hey look, today our seluecid foes have deployed in a giant box formation with all their cataphracts inside and ringed on the outside by skirmishes, and which we shall now dub the mega-tercio. (yeah people did that and it was very effective)

I also reasoned the UI that would need to be built for such a thing would allow for flank marches! (which never happened sadly)

Of course I didn't consider that this would add 8 plus turns to a MP match prior to the battle even starting

Damn, now I almost feel enough nostalgia to s/u 10-15 open and hidden challenges in FOG1...

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks for the feedback

[Lehnardtsson]

I agree at 200%
I really miss my personnal armies and having the possibility to choose among them
same for maps...

[MaxDamage]

Pot luck army with AI filled unit slots and pot luck terrains is always the way to go.

please add fully random terrain type selection.

[rbodleyscott]

please add fully random terrain type selection.

It's on the wishlist

[the_iron_duke]

What happens if one sets up a Pot Luck vs Pot Luck game? One has to set a map theme, so what happens if one chooses Tropical? Could one still end up with Ancient Britons vs Scots-Irish on a Tropical map?

I think there's a strong case for an Auto-map option, which would automatically choose a map based on the two selected armies. I think it would be better as an automated system, rather than influenced by player selection, to add a bit more random variety to the maps one plays on and to prevent playing on the same map type every time with a particular army. Unlike FoG I, the player now selects his troops from the army list after seeing the map, so there's greater possibility to tailor one's forces to the terrain and less potential for having the wrong troops for a map.

I also think there is less difference between "open" and "close" terrain maps than in FoG I and the maps are generally better-balanced for different army types, such as in the amount of "rough" and similar terrain.

So, as describe earlier, each army could be given a map profile based upon their homeland territory. It could be a bit of a balance between the terrain the army is best suited to fighting in, plus the terrain of their homeland. For example, Greece is pretty hilly and mountainous, but the quintessential Greek army - the hoplite army - is probably best suited to flat terrain, the closest of which would be Agricultural.

So some sample faction map profiles might look something like this:

Ancient Britons:

North European Agricultural: 40% (chance of map)
North European Wooded: 40%
North European Hilly: 20%

Scots-Irish

North European Mountains: 40%
North European Wooded: 20%
North European Hilly: 20%
North European Agricultural: 20%

Greeks

Mediterranean Agricultural: 40%
Mediterranean Mountains: 25%
Mediterranean Hilly: 25%
Mediterranean Wooded: 10%

Then it would be a 50/50 whether Side A was playing "home" or "away" and therefore whether the home army's map or away army's map would be used.

[rbodleyscott]

So, as describe earlier, each army could be given a map profile based upon their homeland territory.

They already do for sandbox campaigns. This could be applied in custom battles at least as an option or for pot luck battles.