Generals

[hjc]

I don't want to seem disrespectful too but imho all those "choices" came from the limit of the engine rather than deliberate developing ideas.

Agreed. I've occasionally been checking out the AI scripts, there are limitations that come from the game engine. There's a restriction on local variables for a start. And I might be wrong but it looks like the AI is unable to look forward much beyond the current move. A computer chess engine would be devastated by even a beginning player if it could look forward only one move, so it's interesting the AI can do so well by only considering what it can do with the current move. If you look at the code, and what the AI has to work with, they've done a pretty good job with it.

I would like to see the engine able to handle more local variables and dynamic data structures for a start. I don't know how possible it would be to set up a search tree for future move evaluation and pruning, but I suspect it's beyond the current engine. If the engine were to gain capability I think some of the restrictions could be lifted.

[Cumandante]

I don't want to seem disrespectful too but imho all those "choices" came from the limit of the engine rather than deliberate developing ideas.

Agreed. I've occasionally been checking out the AI scripts, there are limitations that come from the game engine. There's a restriction on local variables for a start. And I might be wrong but it looks like the AI is unable to look forward much beyond the current move. A computer chess engine would be devastated by even a beginning player if it could look forward only one move, so it's interesting the AI can do so well by only considering what it can do with the current move. If you look at the code, and what the AI has to work with, they've done a pretty good job with it.

I would like to see the engine able to handle more local variables and dynamic data structures for a start. I don't know how possible it would be to set up a search tree for future move evaluation and pruning, but I suspect it's beyond the current engine. If the engine were to gain capability I think some of the restrictions could be lifted.

One can always dream...

[Kaede11]

FoG 3?

[lapdog666]

FoG 3?

i'd rather get better generals now. before new year or just after it

[Kaede11]

FoG 3?

i'd rather get better generals now. before new year or just after it

Obviously. It was just a joke.

[lapdog666]

FoG 3?

i'd rather get better generals now. before new year or just after it

Obviously. It was just a joke.

i know i am just bumping thread to make it biggest on the forum in order to make devs seriously consider expanding generals : D

[NikiforosFokas]

So a question: i did not yet understand how we maximize the sub-generals. Can someone kindly explain that to me. Thanks in advance.

[Cumandante]

So a question: i did not yet understand how we maximize the sub-generals. Can someone kindly explain that to me. Thanks in advance.

If you're asking how to get the max number of sub-generals in an army:
During army selection, position Infantry (not LF) in the center, Cavalry (not LH) on both sides and in the rear as well.


Also, can we please get a change to this? As I said before, it feels gamey and some armies can't even get a second general. Perhaps a general purchase system?

[76mm]

Also, I don't understand the ability (or lack thereof) to re-assign generals. I thought that I should be able to re-assign generals to any unit (at least of my nationality), but that does not seem to be the case--I cannot assign cav generals to foot units. While that makes sense, the problem is that in a current MP game I have one general for about fifty foot units, and two cavalry generals for two cavalry units...

[Cumandante]

Also, I don't understand the ability (or lack thereof) to re-assign generals. I thought that I should be able to re-assign generals to any unit (at least of my nationality), but that does not seem to be the case--I cannot assign cav generals to foot units. While that makes sense, the problem is that in a current MP game I have one general for about fifty foot units, and two cavalry generals for two cavalry units...

You can. However, the unit you want to move the general to must belong to his current command.

[rbodleyscott]

Also, I don't understand the ability (or lack thereof) to re-assign generals. I thought that I should be able to re-assign generals to any unit (at least of my nationality), but that does not seem to be the case--I cannot assign cav generals to foot units. While that makes sense, the problem is that in a current MP game I have one general for about fifty foot units, and two cavalry generals for two cavalry units...

Assign some foot units to the cavalry general's command, then you can move him to one of the foot units.

[76mm]

Assign some foot units to the cavalry general's command, then you can move him to one of the foot units.

Thanks; sorry if I'm being dense again, but then I would need to transfer all of the foot into the former cavalry command, and the cavalry to a different command?

[Cumandante]

Assign some foot units to the cavalry general's command, then you can move him to one of the foot units.

Thanks; sorry if I'm being dense again, but then I would need to transfer all of the foot into the former cavalry command, and the cavalry to a different command?

Yes. A bit clunky, but that's how it works.

[kongxinga]

Tangentially related, but I wish FOG 2 had the duelling generals from Sengoku. I know this wasn't historical, but for entertainment value there is little that can beat forcing the CIC and his elite unit to retreat because my subgeneral with 8 duelling skill engaged and incapacitated the CIC.

While I doubt Hannibal Barca went Mano- a Mano (although from inferences he was no slouch in that department), a very weak piece of evidence for duels is the Spolia Optima which a few Roman generals got from defeating the enemy general in single combat.

I do know that exceptions don't make the rule, and like how it is set up now.

[Mysteron]

Not sure if I was doing something wrong as I've only just started playing and am going back and forth between the manual and the game but I played a quick battle the other day (or it might have been a campaign battle) and I added about a dozen or so foot units. When I clicked on one of the additional units they had no command group and seemingly no way to assign these units to any general. No manner of right clicking on the units or my one general (I had no cav units and as such my 40-50 strong infantry army had just one general - at that stage I didn't realise I had to 'buy' a cavalry unit to designate right and left for one of their number to be magically escalated to sub-general status - if indeed I've got that right - it's not really made clear anywhere). So I'd no idea how to get these units assigned.

And on the sub general aspect I'd far sooner see an open and transparent system whereby, you want another commander, you buy one (or more, up to 2-3 max), not some underlying game mechanic that only assigns them if you know how to fiddle the system. It would not seem unreasonable for me for a L/R cavalry wing to have a sub-general and for the infantry bulk two have 1-2 more, even if one of those is this C in C.

[Kaede11]

Tbh I don't pay much attention to general commands because I don't understand how they work at al.

What's the point anyway? I had lots of success without caring about it.

[pipfromslitherine]

I don't want to seem disrespectful too but imho all those "choices" came from the limit of the engine rather than deliberate developing ideas.

Agreed. I've occasionally been checking out the AI scripts, there are limitations that come from the game engine. There's a restriction on local variables for a start. And I might be wrong but it looks like the AI is unable to look forward much beyond the current move. A computer chess engine would be devastated by even a beginning player if it could look forward only one move, so it's interesting the AI can do so well by only considering what it can do with the current move. If you look at the code, and what the AI has to work with, they've done a pretty good job with it.

I would like to see the engine able to handle more local variables and dynamic data structures for a start. I don't know how possible it would be to set up a search tree for future move evaluation and pruning, but I suspect it's beyond the current engine. If the engine were to gain capability I think some of the restrictions could be lifted.

Only just saw this. I am not sure why you think a local variable restriction would affect long-term AI logic? Firstly you wouldn't use local variable for long-term store as (obviously) they only exist for the duration of the function call - you would use globals to store ongoing state. And if you DID need more local variable storage, you would just create a structure and use that rather than disparate individual variables.

And, as is a somewhat cliched note for AI discussions, chess can look dozens of moves ahead because the rules are so very simple. Doing so for games like FoG would be a very different kettle of fish, especially as there are random elements to be taken into account too

Cheers

Pip

[edb1815]

Does anyone keep a general behind the line out of combat to rally disordered or fragged units?

Going back to the OP it is another use for a general - transfer to a unit for rally bonuses.

[hjc]

I am not sure why you think a local variable restriction would affect long-term AI logic?

Hello Pip, no - the local variable restriction as an observation of a limitation ("for a start"), separate to long term AI logic. 32 local variables is not a crushing limit, but I've seen there are routines where the script author has bumped into that limit.

You're quite right about the simple rules of chess - which allows current chess engines on regular consumer hardware to look forward (using pruned search trees, admittedly) 14 to 15 moves. I don't think FoG needs to be searching right to the end of the game That said, it would be helpful for the AI to be able to look ahead at least a couple moves.

You're quite right about the random element (piece is taken or not in chess, but a unit may win melee, lose melee, suffer cohesion loss, rout). But a part of looking ahead in chess is positional evaluation. And positional considerations would help a wargame AI when it can look further ahead.

Finally, I hope I didn't come off as criticizing the game - I'm not saying "the engine is broken" or "the AI is inadequate" - like I said, I think the AI programming in this game is excellent. I'm just looking toward the future. People used to say that a chess program would never be as good as a human, let alone beat one. I think that one day we can at least get close to a wargame AI that gives the very best players a real run for their money.

[w_michael]

Does anyone keep a general behind the line out of combat to rally disordered or fragged units?

Going back to the OP it is another use for a general - transfer to a unit for rally bonuses.

It is situational, but I have done that.