Simulation Mode

[Jackblock]

Reading through the forums I came cross some discussions about how the developers had to cut some simulation focused rules (e.g Anarchy Charges, priority targets) in favor of a more streamlined gameplay.

I wonder if now we could add a game mode that those rules are enabled and the game rebalanced. I don’t think that making different sets of rules would hurt sales now and in fact this could be a new Dlc. Of course I have no idea if it’s even possible in the current engine, but one can dream

[desicat]

Reading through the forums I came cross some discussions about how the developers had to cut some simulation focused rules (e.g Anarchy Charges, priority targets) in favor of a more streamlined gameplay.

I wonder if now we could add a game mode that those rules are enabled and the game rebalanced. I don’t think that making different sets of rules would hurt sales now and in fact this could be a new Dlc. Of course I have no idea if it’s even possible in the current engine, but one can dream

Making it a DLC is an interesting idea, then only those who want it will have it and it doesn't become a game option but a DLC choice.

[Schweetness101]

do you have a list of all the rules that were cut? If I know what the rules are I could look around in the code and see if it's mentioned or commented out somewhere

[desicat]

do you have a list of all the rules that were cut? If I know what the rules are I could look around in the code and see if it's mentioned or commented out somewhere

StockwellPete maybe? He did a lot with FOG1

[Jackblock]

do you have a list of all the rules that were cut? If I know what the rules are I could look around in the code and see if it's mentioned or commented out somewhere

I'll post below the metions of all the rules i could find, but i didn't play the older games so i only have a general idea about how those rules work

1)

Will the developers consider in the future to add opportunity fire(like Pike & Shot)to FOG2? Or do you feel this will fundamentally change the dynamic of this game. I find it works quite well in P&S, and thought it might be interesting here. Thoughts?
Cheers
Alex

It was removed deliberately during the development process because it is incompatible with an effective Undo command.

2)

Well, individual units are at a disadvantage individually due to the move and shoot penalty, but yes, they can gang up on one unit. That is more of a problem imho: the central radar directed fire of multiple batteries until target destroyed, move onto the next. . I doubt many would want this but I think a priority target shoot rule would be nice ( ie can’t shoot at fragged enemy 3 grids away when one is one grid away and going to charge you next turn! Or simply only allow any one enemy to only be shot at twice per turn max.

That would make ranged units virtually useless. The actual damage isn't that important and concentrating fire is the only way they can cause cohesion tests. Limiting the number of ranged attacks on one enemy wouldn't make sense realistically or for balance. The ranged cohesion drops area already capped so that you can't cause more than one during one turn anyway.

It would certainly mean that the whole shooting system would need to be rebalanced. It is currently balanced on the assumption that concentrating fire is not restricted - other than that shooting at half-arc is 50% less effective, and turning to face counts as movement which also carries a 33% shooting penalty (compared with not moving).

Not having defined shooting priorities, though not particularly realistic, was a deliberate game design decision. Many players do not like what they consider arbitrary restrictions, however logical they may be once explained. Like it or not, if we want to remain in business we have to cater to those players as well as those who want realism at any cost.

(Pike and Shot did not restrict shooting priorities either, but there was a lot of criticism of their more restrictive charge target priority system, which seemed counter-intuitive to some players. Their logic had to be repeatedly explained on the boards. Hence we simplified the charge target priority system for FOG2, and would be disinclined to add new restrictions on other aspects of play).

3)

Anarchy Charges
Anarchy charges (which players either loved or hated) no longer occur in FOG2.

4)

New Army Lists!
The army list system has been greatly streamlined. Force selection is quick and easy, and takes place on the actual battlefield, making the pre-selection of “DAG” armies unnecessary.

I'd like to know your views on why you thought having a clear view of the battlefield during Force selection would be better.

Ancient generals didn't know the exact battlefield conditions when they raised their armies. Having a general idea of where you're going to fight (i.e. Mediterranean Hilly) may or may not have been available at the time of army formation, but the exact details very likely weren't.

I'm raising this question because I believe that knowing exactly how many squares of open field or woods there are, as well as knowing their exact positions, while you're choosing which units to buy, feels gamey and allows for excessive army optimization. This in turn minimizes the fun to be had by adapting to a sub-optimal army-terrain configuration.

Discuss.

I agree with you. I was over-ruled by the rest of the team, who felt that having a separate force selection process prior to the battle was clunky and detracted from the flow of the game.

Of course, if you have a will of steel, you can use the army list preview to select your forces, and then select the same forces when you enter the battle.

[Schweetness101]

I'll post below the metions of all the rules i could find, but i didn't play the older games so i only have a general idea about how those rules work

...

I didn't really play much pike and shot so I'm not very familiar with 1 and 2, and those sound like fundamentally different designs around ranged fire, not something that could be readily modded in.

can I get more details on 3? Are anarchy charges like uncontrollable charges from impetuous units?

for 4 I like the idea. Maybe I could do something like make an impenetrable fog of war for the whole map during deployment that would give a similar effect.

[stockwellpete]

There is this old Developer's Diary thread that has some discussion of differences between FOG1 and FOG2 . . .

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=78154

Edit: I have just read this old thread and point 4 above has come from it. The main issues discussed in the thread are anarchy charges, being able to see the battlefield when you pick your army and camps (another FOG1 feature).

[Athos1660]

Differences between FOG1 and FOG2 can also be read in the manual, p. 143-146

[keyth]

can I get more details on 3? Are anarchy charges like uncontrollable charges from impetuous units?

Certain units (knights, shock cavalry and various hairy barbarians) would have to pass a test not to charge a valid target in charge range on the player's turn. It made for interesting tactical decisions because you could only guarantee control of your units until you were in range of the enemy. It made the approach to contact extremely important; once you got there, your impetuous units might just go off. It wasn't for everyone - I generally liked it. Maybe it could be re-introduced either as a parameter for SP mode or have separate (and separately costed) impetuous/non-impetuous version of 'anarchic' units.

[Morbio]

can I get more details on 3? Are anarchy charges like uncontrollable charges from impetuous units?

Certain units (knights, shock cavalry and various hairy barbarians) would have to pass a test not to charge a valid target in charge range on the player's turn. It made for interesting tactical decisions because you could only guarantee control of your units until you were in range of the enemy. It made the approach to contact extremely important; once you got there, your impetuous units might just go off. It wasn't for everyone - I generally liked it. Maybe it could be re-introduced either as a parameter for SP mode or have separate (and separately costed) impetuous/non-impetuous version of 'anarchic' units.

It's a Marmite situation, but the problem with it was that people would play in a very unhistorical, almost farcical way, to manage the situation.

Example: Hairy barbarians (impetuous and subject to anarchy charges) sitting on a good defensive position on a hilltop. The enemy commander would send forth skirmishers to 2 squares away to tempt the barbarians to an anarchy charge and thus both break the line and also lose height advantage. To combat this the barbarian commander would face all his troops either at 45 degrees, or even 180 degrees, from the enemy and only rotate them if enemy non-lights advanced into charge range.

It managed the situation, but looked silly, so people didn't like it.

[stockwellpete]

It's a Marmite situation, but the problem with it was that people would play in a very unhistorical, almost farcical way, to manage the situation.

Example: Hairy barbarians (impetuous and subject to anarchy charges) sitting on a good defensive position on a hilltop. The enemy commander would send forth skirmishers to 2 squares away to tempt the barbarians to an anarchy charge and thus both break the line and also lose height advantage. To combat this the barbarian commander would face all his troops either at 45 degrees, or even 180 degrees, from the enemy and only rotate them if enemy non-lights advanced into charge range.

It managed the situation, but looked silly, so people didn't like it.

That was because of Mel Gibson and "Braveheart" though. "Mooning" at the English.

Yes, there were stupidities about it. I wonder if there is a way of preventing that sort of thing? Skirmishers firing into the rear of units causing more damage perhaps?

[pompeytheflatulent]

I've never played FoG 1, how were anarchy charges implemented implemented in that game? Was is so that it was just a flat % chance for impetuous units to charge something in range without orders? If so I don't think I'd like that very much. In several historical examples I can think of (Agincourt, Arsuf) it was casualties to horses from arrow fire that caused the knights to charge without orders. If there is ever gonna be an anarchy charge mod for FoG 2, I think it should be tied to cohesion checks from ranged fire. For example a CT roll of barely passing the cohesion check from getting shot at would cause the knights to charge off without orders as they think: "if we don't charge now, we will soon lose the ability to charge for good".

Altough that's mostly Crusades era and later knights, I'm not sure about earlier warband types.

[Gaznak]

It was basically a morale test. If you have a shock unit with a valid charge target and you told your unit to do anything other than charge that target then you take a test. Roll 2d6. 7 or better passes for most units. 6 or better passes for drilled units. You get a positive modifier for being in a command radius. Troop quality re rolls apply. There was a substantial behavior difference between having superior drilled lancers and average undrilled lancers and trying to wrangle them into the engagements you preferred.

Alternatively, disrupted non-shock units have to pass the same test to charge enemies at all.

FOG1 is very fun. FOG2 is a better game but they are unique projects and both have their unique charm.

[stockwellpete]

I have taken these from the FOG1 files. The first one is the Anarchy file . . .

Anarchy
Battle groups with the anarchy image on them may have charged without orders, may have refused to charge, or may have refused to move at all.

Shock Troops
Shock troops are all mounted lancers, heavy chariots, scythed chariots, pikemen, offensive spearmen, and impact foot.  At the start of every player turn, if any of these troops types are in charge range of an enemy battle group, they have to take a complex move test if any of the following apply:
• They are also mounted shock troops and the nearest enemy battle group is in open/clear terrain.
• They are also heavy foot shock troops and the nearest enemy battle group is also foot.
• They are medium foot shock troops in open/clear terrain and the nearest enemy battle group is also foot.
If they fail the complex move test then they charge the nearest enemy battle group without orders.  See hex icons and troop types for more information. 

Shock troops have a bright border around their image in the 'cursor over' display to the lower left of the screen.
Player tip: The only good way to avoid lots of uncontrolled charges is to avoid moving your shock troops within charge range of the enemy until you are ready to charge the enemy.

Refusing to charge
• Light Foot need to pass a complex move test to charge any enemy other than other Light Foot.
• Light Horse need to pass a complex move test to charge any enemy other than other Light Horse and Light Foot.
• Disrupted troops need to pass a complex move test to charge.
A battle group that refuses to charge suffers anarchy and not only does it not charge, it refuses to move for the remainder of the player turn.

Out of command
Not everyone always obeys orders.  Battle groups with the hand image on them are outside the range of a friendly commander, and are especially prone not to obey orders as outlined above.

And the details of the Complex Move Test are here . . .

Complex Move Test
A battle group is given a score from the virtual roll of two six sided dice and these are added together to get a base complex move test score. Then this score is modified as follows:

Test Modifier Description

+2 The battle group is within command range of an inspired commander.

+1 The battle group is within command range of a field or troop commander.

+1 The battle group is adjacent to a commander.

-2 The battle group is currently fragmented or severely disordered.
OR
-1 The battle group is currently disrupted or disordered

[Athos1660]

^ So tests can be used/modded for something else than cohesion test in game : there can be 'move test', 'whatever test'. ???!!! THAT is very interesting.

[stockwellpete]

^ So tests can be used/modded for something else than cohesion test in game : there can be 'move test', 'whatever test'. ???!!! THAT is very interesting.

But this is FOG1 which has a different engine from FOG2. So anarchy would have to be completely re-written, I guess, for a mod for FOG2. I think that is right, anyway.

[Athos1660]

^ So tests can be used/modded for something else than cohesion test in game : there can be 'move test', 'whatever test'. ???!!! THAT is very interesting.

But this is FOG1 which has a different engine from FOG2. So anarchy would have to be completely re-written, I guess, for a mod for FOG2. I think that is right, anyway.

And it certainly takes a lot of skill.

But I guess there could be many uses of tests when modding FoG.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was thinking of how battles of sailing ships could be implemented in P&S (it could also apply to foG) and more specifically of a very basic way to create wind direction and force via random AP at each turn, it might also manage random damage (sails, mast, crew...) etc.