Been Waiting for This For About 20 Years!

[Seamus]

FINALLY, someone (besides those Crown of Glory guys) made a great Classic era game with both an excellent grand strategy and operational/tactical layers.

I LOVE IT!

To everyone who criticizes any of the "random, player gets decreased agency" dynamics: go soak your head. Strategy games have been giving players too much agency for decades and it always ends the same way, once a user has had enough time to figure out the system: paint spill simulator. Not saying the current system in FOG:E is absolutely perfect, but it is just about the best I've seen.

One thing though that I do take issue with, is the fact that military mustering is obligatorily "pooled" at the provincial level. This is awkward, inconsistent, ahistorical and produces incongruities. It is also poorly documented in the manual.

My Situation: 290BC, Upper and Lower Italia formed, provinical capitals Latium and Campania. Luckily I had no additional "training bonus" Military buildings in any Upper Italy regions, but the several lower regions do have, most notably Apulia which has both a Mercenary auction a training ground and the shipyard which allows production of Heavy Warships.

I build a Heavy Warship, not quite sure where it will muster, but sort of expecting it to muster in the provincial capital. Nope: Apulia. So now this raises many questions.
1. How should I distribute my "training bonus" Military buildings in the Lower Italy province?
2. Should I have some in both Campania and Apulia?
3. Is it in fact NOT the case (as some guides indicate, and on which the manual does not elaborate) that "training bonuses" in regions outside the provincial capital no longer contribute to bonuses once the province is formed? (This in my opinion would be the advisable route, but I don't know how badly it might harm game balance: pool training effects from all regions in a province into which ever locale they are produced at).

Ideally I think that all buildings should ALWAYS have meaning, and while having training facilities in regions outside the provincial capital might be inadvisable for other reasons, I do not think they should be "worthless" form a "training bonus" standpoint.
Ideally, player should be able to specify where units will muster. Would seem to be a pretty simple thing to change in source code and require adding a line or two in the UI. Maybe two days work for a programmer and an artist/graphics person? Also a very simple changes which seems unlikely to lead to much in the way of bugs; just leave computer opponent functionality as it is --> all units spawn where they currently do.

After playing for a few days now and loving it, this was the first 'complaint' I had so I thought I'd pop in to express my great appreciation for the game(s) and also to ask my questions.

It is extremely gratifying to see that exceptional strategy games live on, long past the slow decline of the Civilization empire! Sid Meiers would be proud!

[Seamus]

One other bit of constructive feedback: The pane in FOG:E which includes the "Export Battle to FOG2" button needs a bit more tweaking/clarification.

I have had it happen once that my army entered a region and a battle ensued. I exported and won the battle handily, and then re-exported the result from FOG2 to FOGE. What happened next was: the standard pane appears (which is what honestly needs a bit of tweaking). The "View Battle" "Export" "Skip" and "View Report" buttons were all active options. My normal procedure is to click "View Report" as this seems to reconcile the effects of the battle which just transpired in FOG2 into the data for FOGE.

I do not recall exactly which pane I clicked, perhaps it was View Battle, but I think it wasn't.

Long story short, what seems to have happened is that a SECOND enemy army had arrived and I wound up playing this second battle in the FOGE abstract battle format. I have also seemingly had instances where I fought and won the battle in FOG2 then accidentally REFOUGHT it in the abstract FOGE battleground.

My suggested changes:
1. NEVER allow a battle to be fought a second time by any means. If a battle has been fought, either in FOGE or in an import from FOG2, then assign a special bool or something that essentially turns off the capacity for another battle to be fought (or for the same battle to be refought) UNTIL the results of the battle which has just been fought have been fully acknowledged by the player and reconciled into FOGE data. I suspect that the fact that this game supports multiplayer is part of the problem here, and the other simple solution is:
2. Also have a second bool that assigns whether the playline is MP or singleplayer. Whatever distinctive functions you need to run for MP, turn them on if PlaylineIsMP == TRUE and turn them off if FALSE. Vice versa for any distinctive functions you need to run for SP . . .

[Seamus]

Another point along the lines of pooled provincial military mustering: ~275BC, Upper Italy province formed, dealing with the Celticii . . . I get the option to build the Castrum Equitatum (National Wonder) in Tiberus (not the national or provincial capital). Obviously having the Nat Wonder will be good for Legacy, but will it contribute the 10 XP given they are going to muster in the provincial capital (Latium)?

[loki100]

some partial answers. The manual was written against a late beta build, its still very useful but some things have changed post-release.

So:

a) warships still deploy per the manual, in provincial capital if that is on the coast, otherwise best port for that unit, and get a bit scattered to reflect the need to spread out the building;
b) all land units appear in your provincial capital. Military buildings here contribute 100% of any experience boost they give, military buildings elsewhere in the province contribute +50%. Note some buildings just unlock an option.
c) due to the importance of military experience, you will need them even in non-capital regions, not least this avoids cluttering up your capitals just with military buildings;
d) remember you can move your provincial capital if you feel another region is a better recruitment centre

e) battles can occur on multiple movement phases, in the case you cite it sounds like a second enemy turned up in the next phase (remember each phase every unit expends 1 MP till its used up its allowance), from this perspective your eg sounds WAD to me;
f) you can't swap between MP and SP so not sure what you think happened. MP games all go via the slitherine server. Practically the only game play change is that in MP you can't export to FoG2
f*) be a wee bit careful when returning from FoG2 to Empires, you need to click on the import battle option to progress the turn, if you simply restart the turn processing it will decide that you opted not to use FoG2 and resolve using the Empires system

g) castrum equitatum works as for (b) above. Best in a regional capital, not the end of the world if it isn't.

Note the 'master' military buildings (armourer/stable etc) can be anywhere as they pass on their bonus to the requisite units if they are stationed in that region.

Glad you are enjoying it, I find it utterly addictive.

[Seamus]

Re: f) I may have been doing it wrong this whole time. I don't recall an "Import Battle" option. I've just been using "Load Save."

[loki100]

its at the bottom of the load page as 'Import Battle Result' but yes it sounds like you are using the Empires resolution as it assumes you simply want to carry on with the original turn resolution

[Seamus]

Yep! I was definitely doing it wrong. So pretty much my only real complaint about the game so far: NEVER MIND

[Zemke]

FINALLY, someone (besides those Crown of Glory guys) made a great Classic era game with both an excellent grand strategy and operational/tactical layers.

I LOVE IT!

To everyone who criticizes any of the "random, player gets decreased agency" dynamics: go soak your head. Strategy games have been giving players too much agency for decades and it always ends the same way, once a user has had enough time to figure out the system: paint spill simulator. Not saying the current system in FOG:E is absolutely perfect, but it is just about the best I've seen.

I agree 100%. I love this game and that I can fight it using FOG2, which I find more realistic than RTW battles, just not as pretty. I prefer detail, accuracy, and depth over pretty all day long. BTW, what does "agency" mean in the context of your statement? Never heard that before.

On a totally different subject. Last, I have been registered for years on Slitherine, just I never posted here, till now I have been only on Matrix Games forums, but what is up with all the German tanks and ranks next to our posts. I get the more posts you have the better german avatar you get, but what is the deal with that?

Ahh, now after this post I see I went from an Infantry Squad to a light tank. As an old Infantryman, I am somewhat offended! LOL Infantry is the Queen of Battle!

[Seamus]

I'm using "agency" in the sense of definition 2 here

action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.
"canals carved by the agency of running water"

Also . . . old academic mindsets die slowly

In social science, agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.

So, specifically in strategy games: many games over the years have given players the capacity to choose exactly which project they would build in their settlements. FOGE does not do that, it instead has a random selection from a list of candidates and the capacity to 're-roll' the selection. The user still has agency, it is simply a more narrow and constrained agency.

I believe the experience could be enriched still further if, there were in-game developments (decisions, achievements, events, national accomplishments, or whatever) which could give incrementally more agency to the user when it comes to the building choices. Just as a rough draft idea:
1. Greater National Unity: thanks to greater national unity, the user now has the capacity to request a specific structure be offered in the shuffle process. Each subsequent turn there is a 29% + (29%*n) [where n equals number of turns since the request was made] of the structure being a legit building option. This costs currency to procure and there is a risk of some sort of major negative repurcussions [accusations of corruption maybe]. So effectively by the fourth turn, the player can be guaranteed to get the option to build the building they are requesting. That in my limited experience, is probably about the median time one has to wait to get what you want anyway, though perhaps not the mean time to wait.
3. Could also be a second tier to this, perhaps reserved for more autocratic national government stage of the game.

[Pocus]

UI is never done so we can probably revise some of the panels in a later date, when the diplomacy update is out.

As for military buildings, they now provide part of the XP boost even if they are not in the region of the provincial capital. Also they boost military expertise nation wide, and that's rather important. Plus they give more experienced garrisons if you are attacked.

[Seamus]

Good to know Pocus! Great game.

[Seamus]

Been back playing some more and just wanted to reiterate: GREAT GAME!

The fact that one can switch over to tactical battle mode with the other game is SO awesome. Makes it possible to actually achieve the kinds of 'outnumbered' tactical brilliance that make for the most famous battles of the era.

The tactical battles dynamics in FOG2 are a bit strange at first. The fact Cavalry are so static is still something I'm not entirely 'okay' with, but I'm on the other hand, they are so 'exploity' in so many games it is understandable to nerf them a bit. In most games of this sort, I will have figured out how to use my cav to flank/rear attack computer opponent almost infallibly and then resort to winning almost every battle that way within the number of hours I've played FOGE (39hrs in FOGE + 48hrs in FOG2), and that is not the case in this game(s).

The other laudable thing about the tactical battles is that, one's army FEELS like an army instead of a bunch of highly-reactive, super-quick pawns on a chess board. One has to examine the terrain, think ahead, anticipate the enemy force and how it might be deployed, and then combine some methodical movement with patience to "set up" the enemy for the perfect slaughter.

The one thing that I find a bit disappointing with the tactical battles is: the maps are pretty dang small relative to the size of the armies. This makes some of the most famous maneuvers of the era (pincers, envelopments and the like) pretty difficult.

[rbodleyscott]

The one thing that I find a bit disappointing with the tactical battles is: the maps are pretty dang small relative to the size of the armies. This makes some of the most famous maneuvers of the era (pincers, envelopments and the like) pretty difficult.

Such manoeuvres were in fact exceptionally rare in this period. Apart from cavalry armies, only the most disciplined armies and the very best generals were capable of employing them, and even they only did so rarely. Mostly the armies lined up and moved forward. There is in fact room on the FOG2 maps to carry out such manoeuvres, in a historically realistic fashion, but the armies start facing each other, which is what they did historically.

It is true that the map size can be a bit restrictive on cavalry armies, but that is a deliberate design decision to prevent cavalry armies from running rings round infantry armies with impunity. Yes, from a strategic point of view, it was difficult for an infantry army to prevail against a nomad army on the steppe, but if the cavalry army accepted battle, they could be beaten, and the game needs to reflect that.

[Seamus]

The one thing that I find a bit disappointing with the tactical battles is: the maps are pretty dang small relative to the size of the armies. This makes some of the most famous maneuvers of the era (pincers, envelopments and the like) pretty difficult.

Such manoeuvres were in fact exceptionally rare in this period. Apart from cavalry armies, only the most disciplined armies and the very best generals were capable of employing them, and even they only did so rarely. Mostly the armies lined up and moved forward. There is in fact room on the FOG2 maps to carry out such manoeuvres, in a historically realistic fashion, but the armies start facing each other, which is what they did historically.

It is true that the map size can be a bit restrictive on cavalry armies, but that is a deliberate design decision to prevent cavalry armies from running rings round infantry armies with impunity. Yes, from a strategic point of view, it was difficult for an infantry army to prevail against a nomad army on the steppe, but if the cavalry army accepted battle, they could be beaten, and the game needs to reflect that.

One thing I had not realized until just last night: the "units" that appear in FOG2 (and also the FOGE battle screen) are NOT of any standardized size. My typical army up till recently was only in the ~20 or 25 units ballpark, but last night I upped my game and stomped into Venetia with 57 units. I was kinda wondering what a gridlock this was gonna be, and imagine my surprise when I actually had FEWER "units" in the deployment (but thicker units in the sense of total troops obviously). So in this sense, my concern about the size of the battle maps was unfounded it seems. Still might not be exactly possible to do the stretch on the enemy front that Alexander did at Gaugamela, but the fact the app compresses the tactical map "units" to maintain them within a range for the total count of units solves the most egregious overcrowding.

You may be correct that fancy maneuvers were rare, I wouldn't know. But they occurred, and that is why they are famous. To the extent this design makes even one of those fancy maneuvers which is historically well-documented "impossible," it has to be acknowledged as less than ideal.

I encounter this logic of designing toward the average pretty often; with respect to the behavior of computer entities and the factors that constrain and opportune player behavior, this logic is sound. But with respect to the play field it is not. The play field should always be ample to represent the most extreme tenable play, even while various game dynamics make such extremes statistically uncommon.

[loki100]

well the manual is clear that this will happen:

11.2.3: In larger battles the unit conversion ratio is down-scaled to keep the number of units manageable

but its something you can adjust, I tend to set the inflation rate at around 150% which seems to avoid the few situations when the system generated a very small army due to this conversion.

[Seamus]

My use of manuals: Ignore and play the game to learn it, until such time as I have a question. At which point, open the manual in Adobe and search for keywords. If that fails then come to forums

I think the last game manual I read in full and thorough was for the table top "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich" or maybe the old "Vietnam 1965-1975."

Both of which, so long, so complex and convuluted, I don't care if I never read another war game manual again!

Adobe sucks for gobbling up small studios and worsening whatever products services they originally offered; but I am eternally grateful for their standardization of things like e-manuals.

[montesaurus]

I agree with Seamus! This is the first multiplayer game I've tried that is as much fun as Crown of Glory Empire!
Incredible the depth this game provides and as far as I can tell, bug free! I would love to see this engine cover the period of history involving the Incas and Europeon expansion as seen in the Europa Universalis series, before their sequels ruined the game!

Keep up the good work!