Command and Control mod (was Tournament mode) . . .

[rbodleyscott]

It would not be an easy mod to do.

I see that it was discussed in the early stages of the games development. Did you do any work on it at all, or was it just discussed verbally? I think one post I saw suggested that you would have preferred it to what we have now.

There was a high level design decision to move force selection from before the game actually starts to on the actual battle map. This took an immense amount of effort to make work because it isn't how the engine was designed.

i.e. It would have been much much easier to have force selection before the player sees the map.

However, now that it is done, it would be extremely difficult to revert to the former system, even as an option or mod.

[76mm]

But at the moment a player setting up a friendly game can stipulate the basic type of terrain they want on the map - agricultural, hilly, wooded etc. So I think players can already "choose their battlefield based on their particular army" and probably very often do - a general with a horse army can select "Steppe" or "Agricultural". In my tournament we stipulate "pot luck" terrain must be chosen, but players still get to see the map first, even if it is not the type of map they were hoping for.

The problem is that often a so-called "hilly" map is almost completely flat, and a "forest" map is almost completely open. Or the opposite can be true--a hilly map can be almost completely covered in rough slopes, etc. So even selecting a map type hardly allows you to know if it will be a battlefield you'd like to fight on.

[stockwellpete]

The problem is that often a so-called "hilly" map is almost completely flat, and a "forest" map is almost completely open. Or the opposite can be true--a hilly map can be almost completely covered in rough slopes, etc. So even selecting a map type hardly allows you to know if it will be a battlefield you'd like to fight on.

Yes, that's true. I am not sure what the % chance is, but you can get an atypical map from time to time.

[rbodleyscott]

The map types are designed to represent terrain that might be found in a hilly region or a woody region. That does not, and is not intended to, guarantee a hilly map or a woody map, because most "hilly" regions don't consist of nothing but hills, most "woody" regions don't consist of nothing but woods, and most "agricultural" regions do include some hills. (Notice, they are not called "plains").

Moreover the maps are randomly generated, not hand-crafted. The algorithms encourage tendencies, not fixed amounts of terrain. Most of the generated terrain is actually in the map border (off the playable map) anyway, because most non-open terrain types use a centrifugal algorithm to encourage them to be placed away from the centre of the map, and during the map generation process such terrain is generated even more densely in the map border - before it is wiped clean.

Anyway, the point is that random things are random. The more you constrain them the less variety you end up with.

We like variety.

There are also a large number of people who like to be able to choose their forces after seeing the map, even though it is less realistic. If you really wanted to be realistic you would play on auto force selection, because few historical generals could choose what forces were available to them.

So really, carefully crafting your army list before seeing the map is almost equally unrealistic.

But crafting army lists is a big part of the fun of playing, so we allow it. Because it's a game.

[76mm]

Yes, that's true. I am not sure what the % chance is, but you can get an atypical map from time to time.

Not sure what I'd call typical vs atypical, but I'd guess that maybe half the hilly maps that I create don't have any really significant elevation in the central part of the map, just a few small hills, or maybe a larger hill off to one side or another.

The map types are designed to represent terrain that might be found in a hilly region or a woody region. That does not, and is not intended to, guarantee a hilly map or a woody map, because most "hilly" regions don't consist of nothing but hills, most "woody" regions don't consist of nothing but woods, and most "agricultural" regions do include some hills. (Notice, they are not called "plains").

Moreover the maps are randomly generated, not hand-crafted.

Sure, of course. I think the map generator is excellent, its just that you can't assume that the map will be something you'd like for a particular army just by selecting a certain map type.

[Cunningcairn]

The map types are designed to represent terrain that might be found in a hilly region or a woody region. That does not, and is not intended to, guarantee a hilly map or a woody map, because most "hilly" regions don't consist of nothing but hills, most "woody" regions don't consist of nothing but woods, and most "agricultural" regions do include some hills. (Notice, they are not called "plains").

Moreover the maps are randomly generated, not hand-crafted. The algorithms encourage tendencies, not fixed amounts of terrain. Most of the generated terrain is actually in the map border (off the playable map) anyway, because most non-open terrain types use a centrifugal algorithm to encourage them to be placed away from the centre of the map, and during the map generation process such terrain is generated even more densely in the map border - before it is wiped clean.

Anyway, the point is that random things are random. The more you constrain them the less variety you end up with.

We like variety.

There are also a large number of people who like to be able to choose their forces after seeing the map, even though it is less realistic. If you really wanted to be realistic you would play on auto force selection, because few historical generals could choose what forces were available to them.

So really, carefully crafting your army list before seeing the map is almost equally unrealistic.

But crafting army lists is a big part of the fun of playing, so we allow it. Because it's a game.

I like the variety of maps created by the generator and the density of terrain. One thing I would like to see are more tracks or fords being generated on rivers that span the height of the board and maybe also some impassable sections of rivers that span the width of the board. I'm not talking anything dramatic just a slight increase in the number of crossings and maybe up to 5% of a river length being impassable. I assume from the discussions that this would be relatively easy to achieve. Does anyone else think this would be a good idea?

[TheGrayMouser]

It would not be an easy mod to do.

I see that it was discussed in the early stages of the games development. Did you do any work on it at all, or was it just discussed verbally? I think one post I saw suggested that you would have preferred it to what we have now.

There was a high level design decision to move force selection from before the game actually starts to on the actual battle map. This took an immense amount of effort to make work because it isn't how the engine was designed.

i.e. It would have been much much easier to have force selection before the player sees the map.

However, now that it is done, it would be extremely difficult to revert to the former system, even as an option or mod.

Arrghh, sounds like Corporate interference !!

Anyways, a modder should be asking this, but would there be a way to mask/overlay the map during purchase before you accept your army choice? You know, some kind of graphic overlay that hides the terrain. I know there are rain and snow overlays that aren't used in the skirmish mode, perhaps a scripted overlay to blot out the map with a similar thing but opaque...

Worst case Pete can accept pre determine armies lists for the DL and the lists and army choices are revealed when the tourney starts. Just a a tad more paperwork

[Schweetness101]

Anyways, a modder should be asking this, but would there be a way to mask/overlay the map during purchase before you accept your army choice? You know, some kind of graphic overlay that hides the terrain. I know there are rain and snow overlays that aren't used in the skirmish mode, perhaps a scripted overlay to blot out the map with a similar thing but opaque...

I did already look at and ask RBS about this and there does not appear to be a straightforward way to do it. I was hoping there would be something like a UI overlay layer and a map layer that are separate from one another, and I cold just turn the map layer off while forceselection == 1 or whatever, but it is not that easy.

I was looking at things like for each tile turn it to black during force selection and then for each tile turn it to the map afterwards, but there doesn't appear to be any built in capacity for turning tiles off and back on easily as it were, it's all kind of wrapped up on map generation, which happens before force selection, and putting it after force selection would also be very messy. I think such a mod would probably be beyond my capacity (at least I wouldn't be willing to spend the time it would take I don't think, especially while working on so many other mods).

[Morbio]

Not especially. While I acknowledge that Anarchy charges were realistic (though perhaps overdone), I was not really a fan.

Can we poll this? I know any result will really represent the vociferous MP group more than the SP community, but there does seem to be quite a bit of support for the idea. How difficult would it be to make a mod for this if the idea is well supported? Perhaps the effects could be toned down a little bit in any new mod?

As you say, you would be polling grognards.

We already have enough problems with people who don't "get" the system writing bad reviews on STEAM after a few hours' play. Anarchy charges would exacerbate that problem.

So yes, you could do it as a mod, but it is vanishingly unlikely that it will go in the vanilla game, for this reason.

or a Global Option that could be selected or deselected?

Similarly we are not keen on official "Optional" rules, because they fragment the player base. (As would, of course, running tournaments under modded game rules.)

This is an issue which should not be underestimated. By providing too many rules options, or house rules (mods), you can easily kill off an MP system as a result of fragmentation.

No to more options... I think the fragmentation aspect is a real worry.

No to constantly changing the game.

If there is something fundamentally flawed, and I've not seen such a thing, then let's have some minor tweaks. But my fear is that all this time on people's hands is leading to endless changes that aren't really needed.

[Athos1660]

But my fear is that all this time on people's hands is leading to endless changes that aren't really needed.

The devil finds work for idle hands ?

[stockwellpete]

No to more options... I think the fragmentation aspect is a real worry.

No to constantly changing the game.

If there is something fundamentally flawed, and I've not seen such a thing, then let's have some minor tweaks. But my fear is that all this time on people's hands is leading to endless changes that aren't really needed.

You see, they have these things now called mods. If people don't like them, they don't have to use them.

[Morbio]

...and I don't use them.. .except where I was forced to if I wanted to participate in the Biblical section of the DL.... and now I don't full stop.

My fear is that these will force their way into the main game because of a small vocal minority.

I think the DL is a great game, I think you administration is superb and the community will be a worse place when you hang up you Excel, but the DL seems to be driving for changes that aren't really needed in my opinion.

[FrenchDude]

And what about people who only play single player like I do ? This mod is very interesting to me. Not testing such modifications that aren’t mandatory for all players just to avoid the MP players to be “tempted” to use different rules is something that would look a bit silly to me and other SP players. Multiplayer is something I’m not interested in (for now), so being able to play with new toys on my own without bothering anyone else shouldn’t be much of an issue in my opinion

I’m not interested in all the new mods affecting the rules, I do not agree with some rule changes, but I think that some of them could be fun and harmless for SP players, and I think that mods are an important part of the game (both SP and MP)

However, they should stay just that : mods. They won’t ever be implemented in the vanilla game, I think that RBS wrote it a few times on different threads already, and that’s a good thing. The vanilla game is very good and suits a lot of people, (the huge majority of the players I think). Modding is harmless to the community, I think it’s very good for it actually, it creates a lot of activity and interest around the game !

[stockwellpete]

...and I don't use them.. .except where I was forced to if I wanted to participate in the Biblical section of the DL.... and now I don't full stop.

My fear is that these will force their way into the main game because of a small vocal minority.

I think the DL is a great game, I think you administration is superb and the community will be a worse place when you hang up you Excel, but the DL seems to be driving for changes that aren't really needed in my opinion.

Well, the TT mod is just being used in Biblical until we get another DLC. And it doesn't change the rules of the game at all, it just adds armies and Richard is quite happy for me to use it in the tournament. Same goes for the Silk Road mod when it has been used, it just adds more armies. There are 4 other sections in the FOG2DL if you don't want to use the TT Mod in the Biblical section, and a fifth section (Late Medieval) still to come.

New rules will only be introduced into the main game if Richard wants them to be. Otherwise they will stay in the mods. The aim with the latest group of ideas is to eventually coalesce the best supported of them into a single "alternative gameplay mod". My motivation for getting involved in these discussions, and now helping Schweetness101 with play-testing, is not primarily concerned with the FOG2DL - it is much more to do with my scenario writing requirements. I wrote 100+ medieval scenarios for FOG1 and I expect to do a similar number for FOG2. There are certain features that I would like to use in those scenarios if it is at all possible.

[Athos1660]

The vanilla game is very good and suits a lot of people, (the huge majority of the players I think). Modding is harmless to the community, I think it’s very good for it actually, it creates a lot of activity and interest around the game !

+1.

As for me, the more I try to mod a feature/rule, the more I like the Vanilla one