Tactical abstract battle system

[Southern Hunter]

I use the in-game battle system to resolve all battles. I quite like it, and think it presents some interesting challenges for the player to balance their troops etc. However, some things seem a little bit wrong, and it could be so much MORE interesting again with more work. Currently battles are super important, but very little time is spent on them.

Some suggestions (including some I have seen in other threads):

- Flank boxes or something to allow cavalry to wheel around rather than attack frontally
- Some kind of bonuses for the types of troops involved? HC vs Phalanx frontally -1, etc.
- Specifically giving a setup phase that allows a player to deploy troops in the way he/she wants to (with Fog of War for enemy setup). Alternatively, allow a pre-turn setup phase (like Dominions I guess) that gives the player some control
- Closing down one flank by putting it on a river or wood, if your general is good enough. OK, strategems in general that generals can deploy sometimes
- Reserves (to prevent a bad retreat, exploit a breakthrough or plug holes in the line caused by units being killed)
- More done with terrain types (more than just the width of the battlefield). Occasional terrain types in a 'lane' of the battle
- Do skirmishers actually do their job of taking the skirmish hits and preventing the HI from taking it? I need to check.
- Something about ammunition and supply bonuses / maluses, depending on campaign situation

Do the devs have any plans to significantly buff up the tactical system? Any other good ideas out there?

[Batman6794]

I second these, particularly some kind of self deployment option, as the AI deployments can be pretty far off the mark.

[Southern Hunter]

Adding:

- Remove the attack/defence stats of troops. It doesn't really make any sense as far as I see it. The strength of a hoplite phalanx was unaffected by whether it strategically moves into battle or waits for battle.

[76mm]

Some suggestions (including some I have seen in other threads):

- Flank boxes or something to allow cavalry to wheel around rather than attack frontally
- Some kind of bonuses for the types of troops involved? HC vs Phalanx frontally -1, etc.
- Specifically giving a setup phase that allows a player to deploy troops in the way he/she wants to (with Fog of War for enemy setup). Alternatively, allow a pre-turn setup phase (like Dominions I guess) that gives the player some control
- Closing down one flank by putting it on a river or wood, if your general is good enough. OK, strategems in general that generals can deploy sometimes
- Reserves (to prevent a bad retreat, exploit a breakthrough or plug holes in the line caused by units being killed)
- More done with terrain types (more than just the width of the battlefield). Occasional terrain types in a 'lane' of the battle
- Do skirmishers actually do their job of taking the skirmish hits and preventing the HI from taking it? I need to check.

I am still trying to decide whether to buy the game, and haven't had time to read the manual yet. But from the list above, the tactical combat system in FOG:E sounds rather rudimentary, to put it mildly. Are the tactical battles actually any fun to play?

[LDiCesare]

You don't play the battles, you view them. The fun is in making the choice of the correct units to go to battle, depending on terrain and enemy forces. It's a bit rudimentary right now.
A predeployment would only help the player achieve unrealistic results at the cost of some micromanagement. The deployment algorithm should be made better in my opinion.

[jhornborg]

I am still trying to decide whether to buy the game, and haven't had time to read the manual yet. But from the list above, the tactical combat system in FOG:E sounds rather rudimentary, to put it mildly. Are the tactical battles actually any fun to play?

The FoG:E battle system is not fun. However, FoG2 is an amazing battle game for which FoG:E provides a decent campaign framework. That's the best way of approaching it IMO.

[76mm]

Thanks. I know FOG2 very well; If I could use FOG:E with multiplayer FOG2 I'd buy it in second.

[76mm]

You don't play the battles, you view them. The fun is in making the choice of the correct units to go to battle, depending on terrain and enemy forces. It's a bit rudimentary right now.

This doesn't sound very different from Imperator: Rome...can anyone confirm if they are more or less similar? I can't say that I enjoy the Imperator battles very much.

[choppinlt]

I can confirm that IMO it is notably different, by more than just appearances. Generally speaking I think the battle system works well in Empires, though I agree with those suggesting it could be improved. Me and my brother both bought Imperator, and neither of us looked back since playing Empires. While I won’t call Imperator bad I will say it felt like rinse and repeat from other Paradox titles, so we came away disappointed. You also know that I’m a fan of wanting MP FOG2 support for Empires, BUT I’m having a blast regardless in my MP games. The battles and how they resolve is entertaining IMO and adds to the overall experience. There are a lot of subtleties leading up to a battle that you must plan for that makes them satisfying. So yes I highly recommend Empires.