Automated Battle System and General Questions

[Zemke]

I just spent a long-time writing a "great post" only to find I had been logged out and my post was gone, which was really frustrating. Anyway, this is the short version because I am not sure how much time I have before I get "auto-logged off", if that is what happened, not sure.

First, I love the game (mostly). I have only played 3 games, all as Rome, and on my third game and the year is about 100 bc and I am a glorious Republic, so I have kind of got some of the decadence management systems down, (sort of).

The battle resolution system seems broke. If you let Empires do the battles, you will lose many battles you can win using Fields of Glory II. Not just closely matched battles, but ones wherein Empires shows you to have a marked Combat Power advantage, (like 2 or 3 to 1) and you still lose. I have also seen battles I played on Field of Glory II, wherein Empires I had a 2-1 advantage in combat power, and it seemed like it was a pretty tough battle in Field of Glory, even though I usually win, it seems harder than it should have been with a 2-1 advantage in combat power. {Of note, this may be because usually because I have fewer units, but higher quality, (Roman).}

Also, I HATE having to fight all these battles, it takes took long and I do not trust Empires auto-resolution system to give me the result I need or want, but this really slows the game down.

Next, there should be a way to try and avoid battles you know you will lose no matter what. Maybe a percentage chance based on the Army Commanders, terrain and relative opposing army sizes or something like that.

I have only played Rome and most of the above were when I was fighting a very long war with Macedonia.

General Questions (Because I am too lazy to do the research, sorry in advance and thanks to those who answer).
1. Does it matter that the same military buildings are getting built in the same province by different Regions?
2. I have not seen any war-weariness by Rome, (and I am in an almost constant state of war). Is this a Roman trait or a design flaw?
3. Ships seem fairly cheap to build and maintain. I would think they would be more expensive than they are.
4. Training / Leadership in the game, what if any can you do to help build better units and leaders?
5. More of a suggestion, maybe consider adding some kind of historical timeline of critical events that happened to your Nation as you play the game, like major battles (not all), important milestones reached, major wars or wars in general, how long they lasted, who was involved, battles and loses. This addition would add a lot of flavor and richness to the game IMO.

Thanks in advance to all who respond.

Zemke

PS
If you think you are seeing things twice, you may. I wrongly posted this on the Field of Glory II area.

[Seamus]

I agree with you that the game would benefit if evasion or harassment (hit-and-run) type of engagements were a thing instead of the inevitable "If two enemy armies are in same region = insty battle."

I have played perhaps a bit less than you, and only up to 250 BC, in one or two restarts (now onto my 3rd or 5th one, having got the hang of it). Until just this most recent playline, I had ACTUALLY been misusing the import/export system. I'd export and fight the battle, but then instead of clicking "Import Battle Result" (not sure how I missed that button), I was clicking "Load Save"

This of course, simply reloaded the "pre-battle" file (which I admit I did find peculiar but I've been sleep deprived here lately so cut me some slack)!

So I was basically fighting the battles in FOG2 and then using the FOGE resolution system nonetheless. This was probably on the order of 20 or 30 battles? As I said, only the first 50 or 60 years of the Grand Campaign (all as Rome) but all this to say: the overall net result was not that much different than what I expected given I THOUGHT I was fighting (and winning) the battles in FOG2. I think in all those battles I legit lost one in FOG2, and noticed only one discrepant "Lost in FOGE even though I had won in FOG2." So, sorry to say, my experience does not align with yours at all, i.e., that the FOGE battle resolution system is "broke." Now it could be that I simply have not played long enough to see how it is broke, or it could be that I'm "doing something right" and you are "doing something wrong."

Quality of troops seems to be a big deal, and they seem to get better not only from being trained with those various bonus structures benefiting but also from taking not too many casualties and surviving battles. The other thing is: ratio of heavy to light troops. I'd say generally I have about 5 to 7 heavy units, and 8 or 9 skirmisher (4 to 5 each of both foot and light cav). Things will change quite a bit as history progresses but those ratios seem to be pretty good for Rome in the first 50 to 60 years. I experimented a bit with the Italian foot, and found them to be pretty much useless on the FOG2 battlefield (the fact they are apparently no less resistant to disordering from terrain as heavy strikes me as a pretty hard [and possibly ahistorical?] call). The "Cavalry" I find to be nerfed in this game (too static and slow), but that is probably by design. Cavalry are the computer opponents bane in most games.

[loki100]

first, the Empires battle system works pretty well (IMHO) but you need to manage your armies with some care.

Few general hints, even early on, make sure you have a lot of light cavalry (4 in your main army) to fill out the cavalry slots on the battlefield. They will probably die (if the enemy has better cavalry) but better that than get hit by the flanking effects. Second, make sure you have a decent number of skirmishers - those combined with the legions will generate a lot of fatigue in the fire phase. Third make sure you have a decent balance between legions and allies and keep an eye on how terrain interacts. There are battles where your allies are of more use than your legions. Other things? don't fight as fatigued, try to rest and repair, make sure you are getting the support bonuses, leadership really helps.

1) depends, most give a x XP bonus to new recruits. This 100% if they are in the provincial capital, 50% if in another region
2) look on your nation modifiers, it shows there. But if you end a war it clears, so bouncing from war to war can be efficient, getting stuck in the same one will lead to problems;
3) by design, you don't tend to need that large a navy
4) see above, but you get better leaders (on average) by making sure your ratio of military buildings is at least over 1 (less is a disaster esp for Rome) and pref over 4. See the 1.5/6 patch notes for this but again you can see the value in your modifier tab. The later military academy buildings add to this as you get more and slightly better leaders as a result - but you need to be fairly deep into the military building trees.
5) I guess the outline historical notes for each faction were designed to do this to some extent.

[poesel71]

5. More of a suggestion, maybe consider adding some kind of historical timeline of critical events that happened to your Nation as you play the game, like major battles (not all), important milestones reached, major wars or wars in general, how long they lasted, who was involved, battles and loses. This addition would add a lot of flavor and richness to the game IMO.

I guess you mean that the game should compile a timeline of events that happened to your nation?
Yes, that would be great. Especially after the game ends and you can go through everything that happened. Especially in MP where the game takes months in real time you will likely have forgotten many things.

[Zemke]

5. More of a suggestion, maybe consider adding some kind of historical timeline of critical events that happened to your Nation as you play the game, like major battles (not all), important milestones reached, major wars or wars in general, how long they lasted, who was involved, battles and loses. This addition would add a lot of flavor and richness to the game IMO.

I guess you mean that the game should compile a timeline of events that happened to your nation?
Yes, that would be great. Especially after the game ends and you can go through everything that happened. Especially in MP where the game takes months in real-time, you will likely have forgotten many things.

Well, my ideal would be in the vain of Rome Total War somewhat, but deeper. A historical timeline with some detail, maybe you could mouse over for the detail, just throwing out ideas. Details like wars, length, and battles fought, when your government type changed "states", civil wars, # of battles fought or whatever. Or maybe limit it to really major wars. I just fought Macedonia over Greece twice and it was my Punic war, bloody and long. Two wars really and the first did not go very well, learned from that. Things like that would add a level of nice historical detail, and most of us who play these types of games have a historical interest anyway.

Another similar idea would be recorded major victories or even loses. The Romes NEVER forgot what happened at Cannae. For example, let's say you just won a major victory (or loss that caused the loss of your Capital) in the Province or Region where your Capital is. This would be recorded with some details (who, casualties), and maybe even a "monument" to the battle placed on the map, or better yet a free monument in your Capital that gives cultural. Or let's say you fought the largest battle to date in your game somewhere on the map, that could be a monument (if you won). Anyway, I think little things like that add a lot of "ownership" to the game, and particularly for a game like this, you spend so many hours playing, slowing building and working towards your goals. These monuments could be "living", in other words, replaced by the next major battle or limits places on how many, like no more than three or something like that.

Anyway, I am no programmer just the "good idea guy" (we have all worked with those types before lol), and I am sure they have plenty of those around. I'll bet if I paid for the extra programming it could get added! LOL

[Zemke]

I agree with you that the game would benefit if evasion or harassment (hit-and-run) type of engagements were a thing instead of the inevitable "If two enemy armies are in same region = insty battle."

I have played perhaps a bit less than you, and only up to 250 BC, in one or two restarts (now onto my 3rd or 5th one, having got the hang of it). Until just this most recent playline, I had ACTUALLY been misusing the import/export system. I'd export and fight the battle, but then instead of clicking "Import Battle Result" (not sure how I missed that button), I was clicking "Load Save"

This of course, simply reloaded the "pre-battle" file (which I admit I did find peculiar but I've been sleep deprived here lately so cut me some slack)!

So I was basically fighting the battles in FOG2 and then using the FOGE resolution system nonetheless. This was probably on the order of 20 or 30 battles? As I said, only the first 50 or 60 years of the Grand Campaign (all as Rome) but all this to say: the overall net result was not that much different than what I expected given I THOUGHT I was fighting (and winning) the battles in FOG2. I think in all those battles I legit lost one in FOG2, and noticed only one discrepant "Lost in FOGE even though I had won in FOG2." So, sorry to say, my experience does not align with yours at all, i.e., that the FOGE battle resolution system is "broke." Now it could be that I simply have not played long enough to see how it is broke, or it could be that I'm "doing something right" and you are "doing something wrong."

Quality of troops seems to be a big deal, and they seem to get better not only from being trained with those various bonus structures benefiting but also from taking not too many casualties and surviving battles. The other thing is: ratio of heavy to light troops. I'd say generally I have about 5 to 7 heavy units, and 8 or 9 skirmisher (4 to 5 each of both foot and light cav). Things will change quite a bit as history progresses but those ratios seem to be pretty good for Rome in the first 50 to 60 years. I experimented a bit with the Italian foot, and found them to be pretty much useless on the FOG2 battlefield (the fact they are apparently no less resistant to disordering from terrain as heavy strikes me as a pretty hard [and possibly ahistorical?] call). The "Cavalry" I find to be nerfed in this game (too static and slow), but that is probably by design. Cavalry are the computer opponents bane in most games.

That is interesting your FOG2 results matched your FOGE results mostly. I think or what I have learned, as I posted this right after my wars with Macedonia, was I was using a force mix in my armies that was not tailored so much to the FOGE auto system, but I could make it work in FOG2, albeit granted with several VERY close battles. Another thing I think maybe taking place and if it is true, is a real credit to the design of this game... is each nation fights different or uses somewhat different "doctrine" if you will. I won more against the Antigonigs with FOGE system than Macedonia using the FOGE. I either evolved and learned....not sure. I was also using the FOGE more, due to the larger number of battles.

Anyway, I just love this game so far. It is really great. It could even be up there with some of my all-time favorites like War in the Pacific:AE. Which anyone familiar with it, tells you I like my depth and detail.

[Seamus]

If WiTPAE could get a facelift with some more modernized UI/UX I'd unabashedly announce it as the finest computer game ever made. My understanding is: there are people with the skills to do it, who are not interested in doing it cause Matrix doesn't like to pay people

[Pocus]

The game is definitively balanced around how the battles are fought in Empires, not in FOGII. It is often easier to win in FOG II because you have manual control of all your troops with instant communication. So the right mind set is not to say that the game is unfair because you'll lose a battle in Empires where as you'll win (sometime easily) in FOG II ...

[poesel71]

Well, my ideal would be in the vain of Rome Total War somewhat, but deeper.
...

If I could choose an ideal game in that respect that would be Dwarf Fortress. That game goes NUTS in history.

[Zemke]

The game is definitively balanced around how the battles are fought in Empires, not in FOGII. It is often easier to win in FOG II because you have manual control of all your troops with instant communication. So the right mind set is not to say that the game is unfair because you'll lose a battle in Empires whereas you'll win (sometime easily) in FOG II ...

Today, as I have learned more, I would say my first response needed to be more nuanced. With the proper mix of "All Terrain" provincial troops, and a balanced force you can generally win using Empire's in-game system. But if you are not sure, you need to use FOG2, and even then if both forces are closely matched it is not a certain outcome. Also, be wary of Empire "Combat Power" number for both your force and the opposing force. It seems to not be accurate. For example, I played a battle on FOG2 recently that I really needed to win, but I did not trust Empire to pull it out for me, so I played it out on FOG2. In the game, it showed I had a 2-1 advantage in combat power, but due to the terrain and frontage thing in Empire, I decided to play it out as I said. I thought I had a quality advantage also. Anyway, the battle in FOG2 was VERY close, and I did not have a quality advantage to speak of, I won, but it went to the 60%, which if you play FOG2, says it was close. Anyway, just an example.

[Pocus]

Yes combat power can be misleading, so you now have 3 display choices from the options menu, you can show units count e.g.