Is there any plan on mid medieval, late medieval or even renaissance DLCs?

[Ivenend]

Since "Wolves at the Gate" DLC already expand the timeline of FoG II into early medieval era, I wonder if there is any chance to see DLCs setting in mid medieval, late medieval or even renaissance era. I believe the FoG board game rules also covers these era.

(I know that there is already a game called "Pike and Shot : Campaigns" setting in ren era, but no offense, I really don't like those cubic unit graphics...)

[bodkin]

Yes eventually


http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... al#p778513

[SirGarnet]

Inevitably, but Empires is not even out yet and the team is small.

[melm]

I expect FOGII finally touches the timeline 1500 AD.

[Ivenend]

Inevitably, but Empires is not even out yet and the team is small.

I think FoG: Empire is developed by a company different to FoG II?

[SnuggleBunnies]

FoG2 will eventually be something like 2500BC-1500AD, so no renaissance. That isn't to say that Pike and Shot 2 is outside the realm of possibility someday, but even if that happened it would be years and years away. You really shouldn't let something as minor as graphics stop you from playing Pike and Shot, it's a great game and there is really nothing else that covers the period so well. Hell, until recently wargames were either even more 'boring' NATO style counters, or expensive and laboriously painted miniatures, with all the calculations done by the players. Don't get me wrong, I love FOG2's graphics, but Pike and Shot's are more than serviceable, being based on period depictions -

streeters_battle_of_naseby_1000px.jpg (742.2 KiB) Viewed 4685 times

[julianbarker]

I much prefer the P&S look as find the view of half a dozen figures representing 500 men (without the flags, banners, standards etc.) a very poor representation of the battlefield.

I also find all the 'but my light infantry should have purple pointed hats' posts deeply depressing. There is much that could be done to improve the P&S view, but turning a Spanish Tercio into 16 figures is not one of them.

[Odenathus]

I agree with the comments re FoG II overall appearance compared to Pike & Shot. I much prefer the 'antique print' look - it can be a bit clunky but a 1,000 strong unit actually looks like 1,000 men and not twelve. The animations and figure detail in FoG II are extraordinarily good but is that (superb) level of detail really required in a large game representing huge battles? On a minor note I also miss Pike & Shot's 'Reaction Fire', where firepower units can shoot during the moving units' phase, which often breaks up or hampers attacks. It doesn't matter for FoG II battles involving a handful of light skirmishing units, but it kills me to see six Massed Archer units moving and carefully concentrating fire against six enemy Massed Archer units, while the latter sit idly by. I know that having Reaction Fire limits the use of an Undo button, but I don't like that either...Each to his own.

[melm]

I like FOGII current design that you can see your men fight and fall on the battlefield. It is also very cool to see how a depleted cohort still holding the ground. In P&S, you have no feeling of the casualty of your units. Your tercio with torn flag is still a big chunk.

Opportunity shooting could be a lovely thing but I like the Undo function, which allow me to play with less stress from misclick.

[SnuggleBunnies]

The cohesion system was changed in FoG2 to account for the lack of opportunity fire. Also, advancing and firing first can give you some initial disrupts on the enemy, but your men will have the -20% moving and shooting penalty, while any return fire will have +20% for stationary (a difference of 40% in fire effectiveness!) - so it more or less evens out. This is especially the case because pushing your Massed Archers forward is often a terrible idea, as they are so vulnerable, unlike Pike and Shot or Tercio units.

[Ivenend]

FoG2 will eventually be something like 2500BC-1500AD, so no renaissance. That isn't to say that Pike and Shot 2 is outside the realm of possibility someday, but even if that happened it would be years and years away. You really shouldn't let something as minor as graphics stop you from playing Pike and Shot, it's a great game and there is really nothing else that covers the period so well. Hell, until recently wargames were either even more 'boring' NATO style counters, or expensive and laboriously painted miniatures, with all the calculations done by the players. Don't get me wrong, I love FOG2's graphics, but Pike and Shot's are more than serviceable, being based on period depictions -

streeters_battle_of_naseby_1000px.jpg

I know the unit graphic in P&S is inspired by contemporary paintings and is kind of "realistic". But still, personally I prefer the graphic of foG2, which reminds me the good old times when playing wargames on table: armys are represented by not quantity-correct but recognizable and detailed miniatures -- and it is even more exciting to see that these "miniatures" can even run and fight! So I hope if there is a P&S2 in the future, it can use the FOG2 style graphic.

BTW, there was a game called Sengoku Jidai: Shadow of the Shogun. It is merchanically pretty similar to P&S, but has far much better quality of graphic, in which players can see actual pike or naginata rather than a cube when zooming in.(see the pictures below!)
If P&S2 still use the "block" graphic, I'll still love it if it can match the graphical quality of Sengoku Jidai: Shadow of the Shogun.

Pike formations are not always depicted as solid cubes in 16-17thc engraves/paintings!



You can see actual pikes in Sengoku Jidai: Shadow of the Shogun!

[MVP7]

The FoG2 rules (especially for shooting and ammo) would become a bit insufficient when getting into European Pike & Shot era. I do hope that FoG2 will eventually go it bit further than beginning of 16th century if East Asia (and maybe even Americas) is added.

I prefer the FoG2 style unit graphics and the bit more streamlined and polished game design. There's also a lot of small usability improvements and tweaks that I find the older games hard to play without. The single biggest issue I have with P&S/SJ is the inability of medium and mixed infantry to attack cavalry, even when the cavalry is engaged in melee. It leads to many absurd situations where a friendly infantry unit is stuck in a losing melee with enemy cavalry and even though I have full army of infantry surrounding them there's nothing the infantry can do to the cavalry. This makes especially the Chinese and Korean armies frustrating to play with.

[Paul59]

The FoG2 rules (especially for shooting and ammo) would become a bit insufficient when getting into European Pike & Shot era.

That would be easily fixed. FOG2 is a development of Pike and Shot Campaigns, and uses very similar scripts, it would be easy for the developer to change the FOG2 rules to suit the Pike and Shot era.

More of a problem is the question of Pike and Shot era formations. How would we represent Spanish Tercios and Colunelas, and other strange pike and shot formations with the FOG2 16 figure limit?

I prefer the FoG2 style unit graphics and the bit more streamlined and polished game design. There's also a lot of small usability improvements and tweaks that I find the older games hard to play without.

I completely agree with this. I too find it very hard to go back to P&S or SJ with no group move, undo button, and depleted unit graphics etc.

[MVP7]

The FoG2 rules (especially for shooting and ammo) would become a bit insufficient when getting into European Pike & Shot era.

That would be easily fixed. FOG2 is a development of Pike and Shot Campaigns, and uses very similar scripts, it would be easy for the developer to change the FOG2 rules to suit the Pike and Shot era.

More of a problem is the question of Pike and Shot era formations. How would we represent Spanish Tercios and Colunelas, and other strange pike and shot formations with the FOG2 16 figure limit?

Yeah, the FoG2 engine would definitely be great for a pike & shot and even napoleonic era game. The beginning of 16th century just seems like a good cutoff point for a separate game tailored for the early modern warfare.

I'd imagine that the 16 man limit and having only one model in each unit is not unchangeable if the engine people get involved. If the number of men was doubled, most formations should be doable. There could even be enough men to portray formation changes like going from column to line or square etc.

[Paul59]

The FoG2 rules (especially for shooting and ammo) would become a bit insufficient when getting into European Pike & Shot era.

That would be easily fixed. FOG2 is a development of Pike and Shot Campaigns, and uses very similar scripts, it would be easy for the developer to change the FOG2 rules to suit the Pike and Shot era.

More of a problem is the question of Pike and Shot era formations. How would we represent Spanish Tercios and Colunelas, and other strange pike and shot formations with the FOG2 16 figure limit?

Yeah, the FoG2 engine would definitely be great for a pike & shot and even napoleonic era game. The beginning of 16th century just seems like a good cutoff point for a separate game tailored for the early modern warfare.

I'd imagine that the 16 man limit and having only one model in each unit is not unchangeable if the engine people get involved. If the number of men was doubled, most formations should be doable. There could even be enough men to portray formation changes like going from column to line or square etc.

Yes, 32 figures maximum per unit would probably be enough. We could have 4 figure sleeves of arquebusiers at each corner, leaving 16 figures to make up the pike square in the middle. Of course, we could not fit 32 current scale figures into a tile, so either the tiles would have to be bigger or the figures smaller. Either way it would help to please those players that prefer a more massed effect to the units.

I have no idea if it is possible to program such formations.

[MVP7]

Yes, 32 figures maximum per unit would probably be enough. We could have 4 figure sleeves of arquebusiers at each corner, leaving 16 figures to make up the pike square in the middle. Of course, we could not fit 32 current scale figures into a tile, so either the tiles would have to be bigger or the figures smaller. Either way it would help to please those players that prefer a more massed effect to the units.

I have no idea if it is possible to program such formations.

Scale of the model can already be changed and formation altered but as far as I know the number of individual unit models in unit is hard-capped at 16 and there can be only 1 unit model for every unit (mixed units have two weapons by animations rather than separate models). The model limit could probably be increased easily if the engine source code could changed, adding support for more than one model in unit would probably be trickier.

These limitations could technically be bypassed (in extremely workaroundish and un-optimized way) by making every individual unit model from pairs of men and the different models could be added by animation if there was a pair for each model in the unit model. The major downsides would be multiple times heavier rendering load (unless quality of the units was significantly reduced), and extremely tricky animations.

[Paul59]

Yes, 32 figures maximum per unit would probably be enough. We could have 4 figure sleeves of arquebusiers at each corner, leaving 16 figures to make up the pike square in the middle. Of course, we could not fit 32 current scale figures into a tile, so either the tiles would have to be bigger or the figures smaller. Either way it would help to please those players that prefer a more massed effect to the units.

I have no idea if it is possible to program such formations.

Scale of the model can already be changed and formation altered but as far as I know the number of individual unit models in unit is hard-capped at 16 and there can be only 1 unit model for every unit (mixed units have two weapons by animations rather than separate models). The model limit could probably be increased easily if the engine source code could changed, adding support for more than one model in unit would probably be trickier.

These limitations could technically be bypassed (in extremely workaroundish and un-optimized way) by making every individual unit model from pairs of men and the different models could be added by animation if there was a pair for each model in the unit model. The major downsides would be multiple times heavier rendering load (unless quality of the units was significantly reduced), and extremely tricky animations.

Yes, altering the scale is very easy. I do it all the time when working on the TT Mod. The issue is would the smaller figures be acceptable to the decision makers at Slitherine and the potential buying public.

I'm not so sure about the formations though. Currently all the formations in the game are pretty basic, even the wedge, I don't know if something as bizarre as a Tercio is possible?

I don't think we would need more than one model in a unit. As you rightly say, we currently use different animations to produce spearmen and archers in one unit. The same technique could be used to produce pikemen and arquebusiers.

You are spot on with the extra load these bigger units would place on PCs, that would be a big hurdle to overcome.

[Mord]

Well, for what it's worth better graphics are always desirable over lesser graphics. That's something that the die-hard wargamers need to grasp instead of holding onto the whole "I don't care what the graphics look like its the game play that matters!" That's how the genre stagnates and keeps a thousand new recruits from trying something as opposed to ten. Yeah, it's a no-brainer that game play matters but so does presentation. It's the first thing people see and lets face it people are judgmental. But it's the same old bias we heard when game designers wanted to take the battlefield from a 2d space to 3d; It'll never work, it sucks, wargames are ruined! Depth can help a bit when graphics are lacking but there's no excuse for ugly games in this day and age of computer gaming. It's one of the reasons I can't stand counters. Why the hell would I want a digital version of something from 1979 when I am living in 2019? I want to see and hear all the stuff I had to imagine as a kid. That's the power of the computer! Fog I had a pretty cool aesthetic but the lack of animations, unit size, and effects get old quickly. Fog II looks like TW by comparison and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not to mention the sounds are much more immersive and dramatic. It was a helluva a big step in the right direction.

If or when they move on to a new Pike & Shot (or whatever else in the gunpowder era) I want to see vast lines of men, gun smoke, explosions when the cannon balls land, men falling and screaming, and bayonets/pikes/spears clashing when lines collide. Blobby blocks of blurry men representing hundreds of guys was ok for a first try but it ain't gonna cut it a second time around (five or six years later). I refuse to believe that there isn't a way we could have both great game play and sweeter graphics to present the era in the most immersive way possible.

Mord.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Oh yes, better graphics would be nice. But the graphics are quite good, and certainly not so bad that they should stop someone with a genuine interest in the period from playing Pike and Shot.

[Mord]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think P&S graphics are horrible, but they are extremely limiting in the way they were done, which was fine for the first time around. It's always like that when breaking new ground. I just don't think it would be a good idea to go back to that same style, especially seeing that the division between the two versions will be at least five years apart. After five + years you'd expect to see some major improvements. I would love to see as big a leap for the second version as we saw with FoG I to FoG II. So, I am not exactly suggesting AAA multi-million dollar graphical updates. Having said that though, FoG II's visual presentation is damn sweet, in the same way CM 2's graphics were a major leap from CM 1.

LOL. You know what my holy grail would be? Unit sizes/animations/detail of Rome II or Empire, (Yeah, with the blood dlc!) with FoG's turn based game play! I hate Real Time because you just don't get to enjoy what's going on. You miss all the cool stuff because you have to click all over the place. What's the point of movie quality action if you can't look at 90% of it? Your only chance to catch most of it is watching the replay fifty times because they never figured out how to code a rewind function nearly twenty years later.

But yeah, graphics shouldn't stop people from playing a game that is aimed at their interest but some people (I have read many negative comments on Youtube vids) can't get past them when they are so abstracted. RBS has stated many times that the graphics aren't meant to be viewed up close but I don't agree with that. People want to get right in there and live the excitement — feel the crashing of bodies, the sweat and fear. So, I say shoot for the absolute best that it can be. Even the table-top guys spend a lot of time painting and making their minis look cool. Just because something is table-top inspired and turn based doesn't mean it can't be a showcase for killer screenshots.

Yes, I realize we basically agree. I am just up late running my mouth because I love these kinds of discussions.

But having said all this, I am no more a graphics snob as I am a graphics Luddite. I am old enough to remember when men were single-colored stick figures (Intellivision Running Man) and I absolutely appreciate how far it's all come. It's amazing really. My imagination is still healthy enough to fill in gaps when needed and my eye is still sharp enough to know when more would be much cooler! But the fourteen-year-olds playing games have no clue how ungodly it all is! Just think, one day they are gonna look back on Doom 2016, TW Three Kingdoms or Steel Division II and say "It was fun, but man, it's so dated and the graphics are just horrible now" (like we do with Commodore 64 stuff). Christ, they talk about how ugly Rome II is right now! To me it looks like a Cecil B. DeMille epic.

Anyway, I am excited for the future of these games. I am really glad I found them and have had a lot of fun with them so far. I really can't wait until we get to The Crusades (among other areas). I am hoping they'll add some siege mechanics to the game. It's the one thing I think is glaringly missing and would add a lot to what we already have. FoG II is my game of 2019 bar none.

Mord.