Features/QoL requests

[vakarr]

6. Faster way to navigate through regions with unused slots. E.g. button "go to next region with unused slot".

I take it you have found the listing in the ledger, not quite the same thing but pretty quick? Perhaps if the button can't be added, "unused slots" could be added as a filter to the ledger?

I agree that it's annoying that the ledger doesn't return to its previous view, so if you use it to find the regions with the highest revolt risk, you have to keep re-setting the filters each time you finish repressing the peasants.

I would like to see a listing (actually a diagram) of what you need to build each building and what its construction allows or disallows as a consequence in terms of future buildings - after all keeping it a secret may be fun the first time, but once you get to know the game it's annoying not knowing the future consequences of building something.

[Huygens]

Right now, I do not use the Empire's battle system, at all. That, inevitably, leads to my battles taking longer (though I do love FoG II, and it's very satisfying seeing your triumphs -and disasters- translate into actual results on the strategic map) and at some point, with a faction stretching far and wide, it might become impractical.

There are two reasons for my reluctance to use the Empire's battle system:

First, I have no control over unit placement and that pretty much is a deal-breaker for me; I cannot risk losing a veteran unit to attrition but with Empires I have no way of protecting them: I have perfectly fresh units sitting pretty in my second line, and the same units battling it out in the front line. So, I would like to see some way of tweaking unit placement.

Second -though it's just an overall impression- I find, from streams I've been following (and may I recommend, once again, DasTactics Let's Play as Syracuse) that, even in cases where the player forces destroy the enemy and take absolutely no losses, not even effectiveness reduction, there's a chance the commanding general can be killed, which is also a deal-breaker to me. I don't mind losing a general if I put him in a perilous position, but having a 2/2 general die while chasing down rabble is too much of a gamble for me.

Not sure if it can be done, but I'd like, in cases where the general's presence is not essential, to have an option to have him just observe and not actively participate, or to place him in a second line unit.

I think these two changes would make using Empire's battle system a far more attractive option.

[LDiCesare]

Sure, VPs may not the best way to do this - have you any suggestions how activities like this could be implemented?

Just being allowed to release/relinquish territory you don't want, even outside of peace treaties, would achieve that. The thing is, you should be able to trade anything in a peace treaty. It should not be tied to victory points, and you should keep the control of the provinces until peace is signed or you decide to relinquish the territory.
There could be "attitudes" to armies, saying this army is just marching through territory instead of the current fight/conquer all the time.

6. Faster way to navigate through regions with unused slots. E.g. button "go to next region with unused slot".

I take it you have found the listing in the ledger, not quite the same thing but pretty quick? Perhaps if the button can't be added, "unused slots" could be added as a filter to the ledger?

The ledger is useful but not at all ergonomic for that task.
Everytime you select a province, change its orders, that province moves unpredictibly (even when sorting by construction, the results are... weird). You then have to move back to the ledger, scroll upward, and rinse and repeat. A button like there is for next idle army would be way way more practical.

First, I have no control over unit placement and that pretty much is a deal-breaker for me; I cannot risk losing a veteran unit to attrition but with Empires I have no way of protecting them: I have perfectly fresh units sitting pretty in my second line, and the same units battling it out in the front line. So, I would like to see some way of tweaking unit placement.

Having that level of control would be a deal breaker for me because I'd have to use it, waste too much time, not finish my game and shelve the game.
What could be interesting is:
A better algorithm for placement
General priorities for placement favoring attack or safety of units (so put more or less emphasis in health when placing units).

[guanotwozero]

Just being allowed to release/relinquish territory you don't want, even outside of peace treaties, would achieve that. The thing is, you should be able to trade anything in a peace treaty. It should not be tied to victory points, and you should keep the control of the provinces until peace is signed or you decide to relinquish the territory.
There could be "attitudes" to armies, saying this army is just marching through territory instead of the current fight/conquer all the time.

In a peace negotiation, If I demand an unoccupied region next to the enemy capital, the AI should be far more reluctant to give it up than an occupied region close to my own territory. That implies it should have some sort of discernable strategic value, as well as an inherent economic value.

If I demand a nation stays away from certain areas (sphere of influence), any acceptance must be based on some sort of valuation of that demand.

What's more, if a nation is losing a war they should be more amenable to making peace - there should be some way of modelling that. I can't see how to do that other than some sort of 'war success value' measure.

Assuming the AI works by some sort of prioritised goal-seeking (I have no internal knowledge there), can you suggest how it would evaluate what it agrees/refuses in a treaty?

I agree there should be a way of military transit - this would normally done by a transit treaty - another diplo mechanic.

[LDiCesare]

The problem with VP as they are usually implemented is they work off the status ante bellum. You should consider peace treaty based on where you are now, not where you were at the beginning of the war.
Say A is at war with B. A took a province next to B's capital. B is losing war and sues for peace. B may want the province returned to him, but that means they have to give up more than that province's value. Under all likelihood, different provinces have different values for each party. Maybe that province is very valuable for B because it's next to him, but another one on the border of A producing important trade good that B has a suprplus of is more valuable for A. Thus you can't give a straight VP value to a province because that value should vary depending on who looks at the deal.
Thus, each province should be given a value, for each nation. And a peace deal would have to be positive for both nations, starting from the current provicne control status, nto the status ante bellum, and not a zero sum game like VP are.

[Huygens]

Having that level of control would be a deal breaker for me because I'd have to use it, waste too much time, not finish my game and shelve the game.
What could be interesting is:
A better algorithm for placement
General priorities for placement favoring attack or safety of units (so put more or less emphasis in health when placing units).

You wouldn't be required to use it; you could opt for the default placement. However, being able to avoid situations such as the ones I described earlier (loss of units due to avoidable attrition, risking the general while mopping up remnants of enemy forces etc.) quite possibly would convince more owner of FoG II to use the Empires system, for simpler situations.

[guanotwozero]

The problem with VP as they are usually implemented is they work off the status ante bellum. You should consider peace treaty based on where you are now, not where you were at the beginning of the war.
Say A is at war with B. A took a province next to B's capital. B is losing war and sues for peace. B may want the province returned to him, but that means they have to give up more than that province's value. Under all likelihood, different provinces have different values for each party. Maybe that province is very valuable for B because it's next to him, but another one on the border of A producing important trade good that B has a suprplus of is more valuable for A. Thus you can't give a straight VP value to a province because that value should vary depending on who looks at the deal.
Thus, each province should be given a value, for each nation. And a peace deal would have to be positive for both nations, starting from the current provicne control status, nto the status ante bellum, and not a zero sum game like VP are.

That's OK - the strategic value should take that into account - a sort of "market force" effect. Think initially of two human players - the victor will make the demands, but won't get more than the loser is prepared to pay. Assuming the victor wants as much as possible, that means the value has to be based on the loser's valuation. The loser is prepared to pay that as an alternative to continuing the war, so that "continuation cost" must be calculated. If "peace cost" < "continuation cost", then the terms will be agreed.

The AI should seek to replicate that, so a losing AI must calculate its valuation for the territories & concessions it could lose, as well as a projected cost of continuing the war. Any agreed treaty will put those in balance. A winning AI should base its calculations the same way - as if it were an AI player that was losing. Now, how the AI calculates those costs could be quite complex, as well as if/when peace is sought, but that's the general idea.

[SSLConf_smokey_mkii]

I would like to see a listing (actually a diagram) of what you need to build each building and what its construction allows or disallows as a consequence in terms of future buildings - after all keeping it a secret may be fun the first time, but once you get to know the game it's annoying not knowing the future consequences of building something.

I STRONGLY agree. It's such a faff trying to figure out what you should build where, especially when you have no way to quickly ascertain:

1) what the next buildings on the tech tree do
2) what a certain resource is used for, which buildings make it, what it's worth in trade, which regions nearby need it, etc.

I have three suggestions:

1) Give the game a Total War style encyclopedia with hotlinks, so that when you mouse over a word (say 'anchorage,' 'metal,' or 'wine') you can instantly jump to an entry that tells you all the pertinent information about that building/trade good.
2) Have a tech tree in that encyclopedia
3) Clicking on the Trade Goods Overlay button should cycle between showing you:
a) the goods PRODUCED in a region and where they are traded to
b) the goods IMPORTED INTO in a region and where they are traded from, and
c) the goods MISSING in a region.

In other words, I think the map should be able to display all the information available on the trade details tab visually, by cycling through the various categories. It would make life vastly easier, and I don't think it would be hard to do.

[jimwinsor]

I would like to see a listing (actually a diagram) of what you need to build each building and what its construction allows or disallows as a consequence in terms of future buildings - after all keeping it a secret may be fun the first time, but once you get to know the game it's annoying not knowing the future consequences of building something.

I STRONGLY agree. It's such a faff trying to figure out what you should build where, especially when you have no way to quickly ascertain:

1) what the next buildings on the tech tree do
2) what a certain resource is used for, which buildings make it, what it's worth in trade, which regions nearby need it, etc.

I have three suggestions:

1) Give the game a Total War style encyclopedia with hotlinks, so that when you mouse over a word (say 'anchorage,' 'metal,' or 'wine') you can instantly jump to an entry that tells you all the pertinent information about that building/trade good.
2) Have a tech tree in that encyclopedia
3) Clicking on the Trade Goods Overlay button should cycle between showing you:
a) the goods PRODUCED in a region and where they are traded to
b) the goods IMPORTED INTO in a region and where they are traded from, and
c) the goods MISSING in a region.

In other words, I think the map should be able to display all the information available on the trade details tab visually, by cycling through the various categories. It would make life vastly easier, and I don't think it would be hard to do.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 1796786043

[LDiCesare]

You wouldn't be required to use it; you could opt for the default placement. However, being able to avoid situations such as the ones I described earlier (loss of units due to avoidable attrition, risking the general while mopping up remnants of enemy forces etc.) quite possibly would convince more owner of FoG II to use the Empires system, for simpler situations.

That doesn't take basic psychology into account. It would be suboptimal. Plus, if they balance the game, they'd balance the game aroudnd that so you end up having to do some micromanagement.
Having a way to tell the system your rules about how to place the units rather than placing them manually would be better.

[Boores]

Export Naval Battles to Mare Nostrum

[Geffalrus]

You wouldn't be required to use it; you could opt for the default placement. However, being able to avoid situations such as the ones I described earlier (loss of units due to avoidable attrition, risking the general while mopping up remnants of enemy forces etc.) quite possibly would convince more owner of FoG II to use the Empires system, for simpler situations.

That doesn't take basic psychology into account. It would be suboptimal. Plus, if they balance the game, they'd balance the game aroudnd that so you end up having to do some micromanagement.
Having a way to tell the system your rules about how to place the units rather than placing them manually would be better.

He doesn't mean actual psychology, he just means his personal preference.

[LDiCesare]

I do mean psychology. I'm not the only one who, when given an option, will want to use it because otherwise I'd be making a suboptimal choice. Maybe I'm a compulsive perfectionist, but I certainly am not the only one.

[guanotwozero]

3) Clicking on the Trade Goods Overlay button should cycle between showing you:
a) the goods PRODUCED in a region and where they are traded to
b) the goods IMPORTED INTO in a region and where they are traded from, and
c) the goods MISSING in a region.

In other words, I think the map should be able to display all the information available on the trade details tab visually, by cycling through the various categories. It would make life vastly easier, and I don't think it would be hard to do.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 20#p796259

[gregb41352]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the ability to recruit units directly into armies would subtract about 15 mouse clicks.

[LDiCesare]

More diversity in state colors, or the ability to change one's color, would be nice.
For instance, as Athens, I cannot distinguish Athenae from Pontus, unless I switch to diplomatic view. The units are also indistinguishable, having the exact same flag.

[Huygens]

The more I play, the more I'm baffled by some actions taken by the AI. Granted, I do not expect the same challenge from the AI as from a human, but still some issues should be resolved:

Again referring you to the excellent Let's Play series by DasTactic: in the latest episode (22) the AI kept sending unprotected transport ships, loaded with infantry and skirmishers, in a sea region known to hold the main player fleet. Twice, armies with the exact same composition were sent to die for no reason. The AI had "eyes" on the particular sea region (land forces on the adjacent land region), knew a massive fleet was there and yet sent a total of twelve units to die, with no hope of winning, at all.

On land, although the AI could amass enough forces to seriously challenge the player-controlled faction, it sent an army that was bound to be flanked (7 units with a strength rating of 57 in a region with frontage 8 against 18 units with a rating of 105, throwing away more infantry, skirmishers and a 2/2 general..)

I hope there is a way to tell the AI not to make such suicidal moves.

Second, diplomacy needs more work. Right now, it's too passive on the AI's side and some penalties (that prevent the AI from responding positively in a proposal) make no sense; for example, the malus in the chance to accept a cooperation proposal when "we are not neighbors" or something to that effect; ok, I don't expect Judea to leap with joy when the Celts of Ireland propose cooperation, but to have a faction separated by a single region from a powerful faction on the rise, suffer a -20% chance to accept a cooperation proposal because they do not share a land border simply does not make any sense.

Or have a faction with fewer regions/weaker armies send me proposals to become their client state (most recently the Alani, in my current game playing as Pontus: far away, I'm growing, they're shrinking, "become our client state". No sense there, can't imagine what parameters lead the AI to make such a proposal).

P.S. Speaking of the Alani and Pontus: in the recommendations on how a player could go about leading the Alani, there's mention of some "pontic provinces" in the north; indeed, there's an older map where Bosporus is absent, and (roughly) the lands occupied by Bosporus on turn 1 of the current versions are held by Pontus. So, a small fix is needed there.

Far more serious is the problem for Pontus: the leaders' initial recommendations for target regions (i.e. extra legacy points) are the lands held by Bosporus. Taking into consideration later recommendations (such as territories further west on the Black Sea and on the coast of Asia Minor) I assume a very successful Pontic leader would strive to emulate the largest extent of the historical kingdom of Pontus, but I think the order of priorities can lead to problems in terms of managing the kingdom and its legacy. Also, if memory serves, Colchis was the initial target of Pontic conquests, not Chersonesus (modern day Crimea, which came later, and then Asia Minor, which brought Pontus into conflict with the Romans). Maybe the order these targets are presented has something to do with the fact that in an earlier version these lands were under the direct control of Pontus.

[jimwinsor]

Not to detract from your points in general, but it’s worth noting that land units do not have “eyes” into adjacent coastal sea areas. Other naval units and certain coastal structures do give such vision, but not land units. You’ll notice this sometimes when a blockade symbol appears in a region where you have troops ... there are enemy ships off shore, but you just can’t see them.

[Huygens]

Not to detract from your points in general, but it’s worth noting that land units do not have “eyes” into adjacent coastal sea areas. Other naval units and certain coastal structures do give such vision, but not land units. You’ll notice this sometimes when a blockade symbol appears in a region where you have troops ... there are enemy ships off shore, but you just can’t see them.

Thank you for pointing that out; I was under the impression you could see the ships. I'm certain I had no ships in a region where my ports were blockaded and I could see the enemy fleet, but perhaps there was some building in one of the coastal regions that allowed me to see the fleet (I remember that upgraded harbors lift FOW, for example).

Still, even if the first time the AI was caught by surprise, so to speak (though it's still a rather questionable move, to begin with, sending 6 or 7 units against an army of 18 units...) there has to be some way for the AI to mark a sea region as dangerous/under enemy control, even if it can't "see" the player's fleets. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping the AI from sending its forces in a deathtrap, again and again.

And then, sending a land army of 7 units (in a region with frontage 8 ) and combat rating of 57, against an army of 18 units with combat rating of 105... Three defeats for the AI, in the space of a few turns, and all in Empires' in-game battle system, not FOG II.

I do hope there's a way to fix the way the AI calculated how and where to deploy its forces.

[thierry2015]

Again referring you to the excellent Let's Play series by DasTactic: in the latest episode (22) the AI kept sending unprotected transport ships, loaded with infantry and skirmishers, in a sea region known to hold the main player fleet. Twice, armies with the exact same composition were sent to die for no reason.

AI could send only 1 ship (the weakest she has for scouting)

AND

if he encounters a large enemy fleet = no movement of troops (unless strong military fleet available and more powerful than the enemy fleet)

if he does not meet anyone = movement of troops is possible

it would be nice to implement that