Request about exporting battles to FoG2

[Yarev]

I'd like to say that I really enjoy playing Empires. It it a good game with innovative features but unfortunatelly the export battle option is far from being perfect to say the least. The unit type conversion and scaling up unit numbers really spoils the gameplay. You might think it's not a big issue as manually resolving battles is just an option (Empires being a standalone) but many people bought Empires only because of the ability to play battles through FoG2. I'm one of them and to tell you the truth I wouldn't buy it if the only option was to autoresolve it.
That is why I cannot understand why have you decided not to implement units in FoG:Empires exactly as the were in FoG2. An example: Gallic warriors in Empires convert to warband in FoG2 or horse archers convert to a mixture of light cav and cav because

that leads to more historically realistic armies

?! I don't think it's a good idea to force a player to fight the way you want because it's more "historical". Why cant it be simple lets say hoplites in Empires convert to hoplites in FoG2 and so on?
In a way Empires is similar to Total War (turn-based campaign with turn-based battles vs turn based campaign with real time battles) and yet in Total War if a player with a 20 units army initiates a battle agains enemy with 20 units army gets exactly that, starting from EXACT unit count, EXACT unit types to EXACT unit names! Basicaly nothing changes. So my question is why did you decided to follow a different path that has no advantages (either for devs nor for the players) or logic? You knew from the start about merging Empire with FoG2 so why complicate things.
The other feature that has been denied to us is the pursue mechanic from FoG2. This feature has been added to FoG2 because of the amount of people strongly requesting it. I dont get it why have you not implemented it. Instead we get

...any losses due to retreating will be applied using the Empire game logic

. Which basically means automated calculation and ... that's it.
I have read some negative FoG:Empire reviews solely because of this scaling/converting idea, so it's not just me who dislikes it.

I still have faith that you will change that in the future patches so we can enjoy the battles in FoG2 exactly as they are represented in Empires.

[bodkin]

Some nations would be unplayable if they had their FoG2 roster. FoG2 is not balanced for gameplay it just has historically accurate units which in some cases would be hard to conquer the world with.

[Yarev]

Some nations would be unplayable if they had their FoG2 roster. FoG2 is not balanced for gameplay it just has historically accurate units which in some cases would be hard to conquer the world with.

I totaly disagree with you. FoG2 has more than enough units and its definetly balanced for gameplay (I spent countles hours playing that game) so not sure what you meant. And if some nations have a weaker roster than it's all the more fun to try conquering the world.

[vakarr]

I think the variety of units available in FOG:E is terrific and some fabulous FOG 2 battles are generated that you could never play in FOG 2 because all FOG 2 battles are supposed to be balanced and restricted by the army lists. Also the effects of generals make your units better or worse than they would be in FOG 2 -and this applies to your entire army. The opportunity to play with an entire army of sub-standard troops or super troops doesn't really exist in the same way in FOG 2

For the benefit of those who haven't read the relevant section of the manual, this is what it says:

11.2.1. Converting Unit Types
If you decide to export a battle to Field of Glory 2, then the Empires
army will be converted to FOG2 unit types. The conversion process
is different depending on national characteristics. In particular, the
common units in Empires such as Heavy Foot, Warriors, Mercenary
Foot, Urban Militia and so on will be converted to something
more closely resembling their historical prototype. So for example
“Warriors” in a Gallic Army will translate to FOG2 Warbands, but
those in an Italian army will translate to FOG2 Italian Foot, and those
in a Spanish army to FOG2 Spanish scutarii.
In addition, some units translate to a mixture of FOG2 units,
because this leads to more historically realistic armies. Pre-Marian
Roman legionary units translate to a mixture of hastati/principes and
triarii units, in approximately a 2:1 ratio. Horse archer units, if present
in large numbers, translate to a mixture of Light Horse and Cavalry.

11.2.2. Converting Unit Characteristics
The experience points of Field of Glory: Empires units will be reflected
in the unit quality of the FOG2 conversions as will the current
effectiveness (10.5. of the Empires units.
If an Empires unit has missing hit points, the unit(s) in FOG2 will
reflect this.
The quality of the general in Field of Glory: Empires will affect the
quality of units selected in FOG2.
Unit traits from Field of Glory:Empires are not taken into account
in the conversion process, but obviously units that convert to FOG2
medium foot will be more effective on hilly maps reflecting their
relative advantages in Empires.

[jhornborg]

I totaly disagree with you. FoG2 has more than enough units and its definetly balanced for gameplay (I spent countles hours playing that game) so not sure what you meant. And if some nations have a weaker roster than it's all the more fun to try conquering the world.

Fortunately FoG:E isn't about conquering the world, and the nations that rely on irregulars in FoG2 are typically the small ones that just want to survive and build up their cultures. FoG 2 is a brilliant battle game and is the only reason I play FoG:E.

[Demetrios_of_Messene]

I regularly use FoG:2 to play out battles. I think that the developers have done a very good job translating FoG:E armies to FoG:2

Only thing I would like is an option to keep finishing of an enemy army as long as there are remaining turns after the official rout (the AI should be able to do the same).

[vakarr]

Only thing I would like is an option to keep finishing of an enemy army as long as there are remaining turns after the official rout (the AI should be able to do the same).

Me, too, it's frustrating to get the enemy army into a position where they are about to collapse only to see DING! 40+% game over! Though since that means most of the enemy army will then be destroyed in the rout (and that my army received no more casualties), it would be more fun to fight it out.

[Yarev]

Only thing I would like is an option to keep finishing of an enemy army as long as there are remaining turns after the official rout (the AI should be able to do the same).

Me, too, it's frustrating to get the enemy army into a position where they are about to collapse only to see DING! 40+% game over! Though since that means most of the enemy army will then be destroyed in the rout (and that my army received no more casualties), it would be more fun to fight it out.

As I said this pursue mechanic already exists in FoG2 and would be nice to have it in Empires, even as an option for those who want it.

[loki100]

...

As I said this pursue mechanic already exists in FoG2 and would be nice to have it in Empires, even as an option for those who want it.

it is, its what happens in an Empires battle after the duels (if one side has won) - all those end of battle losses. The same system is applied to a battle that returns from FoG2, so the pursuit is handled by Empires (this is why the FoG2 battle is capped at 40/60%)

[rbodleyscott]

Only thing I would like is an option to keep finishing of an enemy army as long as there are remaining turns after the official rout (the AI should be able to do the same).

Me, too, it's frustrating to get the enemy army into a position where they are about to collapse only to see DING! 40+% game over! Though since that means most of the enemy army will then be destroyed in the rout (and that my army received no more casualties), it would be more fun to fight it out.

The option in FOG2 to carry on after one side is defeated was never intended to be a serious simulation of pursuit. It was put in at the request of the publisher as an option for those who want to emulate Conan, who deemed that the best thing in life is "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"

Allowing it in Empires FOG2 battles could potentially be highly unbalancing. Instead, the Empires system calculates the results of the pursuit.

[Yarev]

Only thing I would like is an option to keep finishing of an enemy army as long as there are remaining turns after the official rout (the AI should be able to do the same).

Me, too, it's frustrating to get the enemy army into a position where they are about to collapse only to see DING! 40+% game over! Though since that means most of the enemy army will then be destroyed in the rout (and that my army received no more casualties), it would be more fun to fight it out.

The option in FOG2 to carry on after one side is defeated was never intended to be a serious simulation of pursuit. It was put in at the request of the publisher as an option for those who want to emulate Conan, who deemed that the best thing in life is "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"

Allowing it in Empires FOG2 battles could potentially be highly unbalancing. Instead, the Empires system calculates the results of the pursuit.

Yuo said it right: battles could POTENTIALY be highly unbalancing

[GBISSET]

I also would like Foge to have an option (as I would for all strat level games I play) to fight out the tactical battles by any other means the player likes, and then import it back into FOGe via answering a few questions. Of course, this would be mainly for solo play, so the game would still have the official method for mp games.

There are many miniatures players who would buy Foge or any other system that has that feature.

[Pocus]

Someone with some programming skill can alter the return file to fake the battle was played in FOG II also.

[Yarev]

Someone with some programming skill can alter the return file to fake the battle was played in FOG II also.

Well that seems hard to achieve for a everyday gameplayer.

The reason I would like to continue beyond 24 turns is that often I get lucky in a battle and although I'm weaker/outnumbered I managed to rout 25% more than my opponent and thus I get a win wich for me is not a realistic thing. I really want to keep fighting even if it means I will loose a batttle as thats more realistic feel for me