Field of Glory II - Leave a Review

[MarkShot]

I forgot to say what is good about the difficulty approach. Single unit combat behaves as one expects (always) as opposed to on hard levels skirmishers take down a legion.

[Blackbirdx61]

You would not want my review anyplace else.

Massively disappointed in the Game Play, Cavalry are under powered to the point of being nearly useless. It does not take many rounds of a Player encountering situations like Cataphracts being disadvantaged against Medium (lightly armored and Loose order) infantry to realize that the designers seem to have had no actually knowledge of Ancient Military history and a predetermined result in their minds. I would love to ask one of the Devs just why would anyone in the Ancient world go to the massive expense of Training and Fielding an Armored Horseman; when a man in a Leather Jerkin with a Short Spear and small shield is far superior to a an Armored Lancer, then the game restricts Horseman to half sized units exacerbating their already under powered performance. Its utterly Ridiculous. There are a good few comments that echo my feelings on this to be found in the steam forums for this game. Personally I'm sorry I wasted my Money on this Terrible adaption of Miniatures Wargaming to the PC.

I think the Graphics are very good even if I found the Navigation clunky. I personally very liked the Tabletop like presentation of the game. Even if, It is far to easy to mouse off the edge and send the table top off into cyber space. Why the game edges do not represent some sort of scrolling limit utterly eludes me, its not like its a hard thing to program.

Still A great many people seem to enjoy the game. And if you strictly play the Romans or other Infantry Dominant armies its may be worth your time. If your at all interested in anything like a historical result; your not going to come close. As a lifelong student of the period I am of course, deeply disappointed.

On the plus side if one has a miniatures collection the various Scenario Generating tools are excellent, and might well be worth the price to a player looking for inspiration, or for something unusual or interesting to play out on the table top.

[SnuggleBunnies]

It does not take many rounds of a Player encountering situations like Cataphracts being disadvantaged against Medium (lightly armored and Loose order) infantry to realize that the designers seem to have had no actually knowledge of Ancient Military history and a predetermined result in their minds.

You certainly don't have to like the game, but Richard, the main designer, is *extremely* knowledgeable when it comes to military history. As for Cataphracts, they do quite well against Medium Foot in Open terrain, though of course it's best to disrupt the enemy with missile fire before charging in with cavalry. If you want cavalry that can just lol-charge in and murder things, grab the Klibanophoroi from the 10th and 11th century Byzantine lists.

[Blackbirdx61]

I am not looking for a Force that can Rush in and Murder things, I am interested in as accurate recreation of Ancient Combat as I can find.

Certainly one of the most consistent aspects of combat through the ages from Cannae to Waterloo was while infantry could present a firm hedge of spear points to the Horse they could fend off most any Cavalry charge, but once interpenetrated, the advantage shifts radically to the horse; which is in no way true in this game. I specifically chose the example of the Medium foot because the horse have every advantage in training, armor, reach and weight and they are still disadvantaged! The fact that horse units are fixed at 240 men so they are always outnumbered in melee is A arbitrary and totally a historical. Not to mention that 240 Horse should butcher 480 interpenetrated foot any damn way. Discipline, Armor, Weapons, Training and Momentum being far more important in the Ancient world than simple headcount.

Then there is the rule that if the Horse start their charge from the front, and strike a flank, their only hope for advantage in this game, they are still striking the front. Because of course we all know there were uncounted incidents in history of horseman trotting up pausing. and politely waiting for the foot to change their facing and set their spears before completing their charge. after all it would be terribly impolite to take an unprepared enemy by surprise that way.

I'm sorry I see no evidence in the design of this game the designer knew or cared anything about the historical period. It is equally clear the game is designed to in every possible instance give the every possible advantage to the foot and reduce the horse to a flank guard that might, as at Cannae or Zamma drive off the enemies horse, returning after the issue has been decided and delivering the coup de grace to an already defeated enemy. Which is at best a very cursory reading of ancient history. One that ignores one of the Fundamental triads of Ancient Warfare, that troops in Close order were in the best position to ward off the horse, but vulnerable to missiles, While spreading the formation to reduce the effect of the bowmen, invited the attentions of the horseman. At different points in history different arms were of course dominant; but the tension of the triad was always there, from the Rise of Persia to Adrianople. Training, Discipline resources and Terrain all contributing to which arm in a given era became dominant.

There is a thread on another topic where a player was asking about Cavalry Tactics, he got virtually no help, because there is not much to tell him other than, never spend a single point on a horseman the lists do not absolutely require, as they are a total waste of points in this game. I have studied and gamed this period for 40 years, my entire adult life, I have never encountered another set of miniatures rules that so sadly diminishes the role of the horse as does this game or even comes close.

I had great hopes for this game as a Translation of the TTG to the PC, as I said in my Original Post, I was greatly disappointed. If all one is interested in is counting APs One might well enjoy this game, a great many people obviously do; if one is interested in results that are any way related to the period supposedly being simulated I would say look elsewhere, Nuff said. I can only hope FOG III will be somewhat better BB.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think you're grossly mistaken in your impressions of the game and designer, but it is clearly beyond my ability to change your mind at all. Goodbye then!

[Athos1660]

I have studied and gamed this period for 40 years, my entire adult life, I have never encountered another set of miniatures rules that so sadly diminishes the role of the horse as does this game or even comes close.

If so, it is to FoG2 devs' credit that they accurately depicted cavalry of the area in their games.
I say that, based on very serious reading on the subject.

Cavalry is devastating in FoG2 when used properly.

I think you're grossly mistaken in your impressions of the game and designer, but it is clearly beyond my ability to change your mind at all. Goodbye then!

Indeed. If there were only one thing one couldn't deny about this game, it would be its historicity.

[SimonLancaster]

I do think that cataphracts are a little underpowered when in melee with infantry. They should do more damage, I think (especially v non-spear). But, overall cavalry are quite good in the game. Lancers are very effective.

[Cunningcairn]

I had great hopes for this game as a Translation of the TTG to the PC, as I said in my Original Post, I was greatly disappointed. If all one is interested in is counting APs One might well enjoy this game, a great many people obviously do; if one is interested in results that are any way related to the period supposedly being simulated I would say look elsewhere, Nuff said. I can only hope FOG III will be somewhat better BB.

Wow that is some review. I'd be interested to know what TT game has so impressed you that you think FOG2 is such a poor translation. As far as TT translations go there is no PC game that comes close to FOG2. Yes there are one or two things that are gamey and not always in line with historical precedent but in the bigger picture they really don't matter and in time will probably be corrected. The author and his network are extremely knowledgeable on the subject of ancient warfare and war gaming the period. If you have played war games for 40 tears you should know that. A great ancient war game is one that grants success to players that use the tactics and abilities of armies of that period without detailed consideration to the specific rules of the game. FOG2 fulfills that brief with one or two minor exceptions.

[SimonLancaster]

Update: My cataphracts disordered some Praetorian Guard on first contact so they did well!

[Cunningcairn]

Update: My cataphracts disordered some Praetorian Guard on first contact so they did well!

Did you charge them or did they charge you?

[SimonLancaster]

Update: My cataphracts disordered some Praetorian Guard on first contact so they did well!

Did you charge them or did they charge you?

I can't remember exactly.. don't the cataphracts still get the bonus like impact foot?

[Cunningcairn]

Update: My cataphracts disordered some Praetorian Guard on first contact so they did well!

Did you charge them or did they charge you?

I can't remember exactly.. don't the cataphracts still get the bonus like impact foot?

I don't know for sure but would expect the infantry to be penalised by charging cataphracts but not the other way around.

[DanZanzibar]

Impact foot lose their 100 POA against lancers if the foot initiate the charge - but they don’t if defending.

[Blackbirdx61]

Update: My cataphracts disordered some Praetorian Guard on first contact so they did well!

Cool.
I would say my Favorite set of Rules, and its quite old but would be TTGames Shock of Impact. I think it struck a good balance between speed of play and level of detail. Unformed Melee could get to be a bit of a furball, but over all it was worth it for the level of detail. I really think it added some very good interesting ideas not just to gaming but to how one can approaching thinking about ancient warfare; that by itself was well worth the price of admission. I do tend to older rules with more detail. vs newer fast play rules; but everyone has to make their personal choices that way.

One thing I do very like about FOG II is that they dropped the HexGrid. I understand the reasons for having one and it becoming a convention; but especially for Ancients where maintaining the line can be so very important; it can be quite awkward. Actually I think the cosmetic side of the game is excellent a huge improvement over FOG I

Apologies for the lateness of my reply, My day job is in Telecommunications, which makes me an "Essential Worker"; which limits rather limits my time for outside interests.
TY for the reply and Good Hunting Lancaster. BB

[SimonLancaster]

On reflection, I think my opponent made a mistake and charged my cataphracts with his Praetorian Guard so he lost his advantages. It was heading towards endgame and I was winning so he had to take some risks.

[kutayc]

you asked for it and i did , because the game deserves it. rated some positive reviews, gave some extra helpful awards and one clown award to one who deserved it .

[rbodleyscott]

you asked for it and i did , because the game deserves it. rated some positive reviews, gave some extra helpful awards and one clown award to one who deserved it .

Thanks

[mgilletly]

Created by those who know nothing about Medieval history, warfare, combat, the men and forces or weaponry and very little about programming and only how to produce as cheaply as possible a cheap totally frustrating and absolute worthless rip off of a game and series and nothing more than a complete stolen rip off and copy of the 40+ year old tabletop miniatures "Rules by Ral" rules system which was as equally as boring, frustrating and absolutely worthless. Everything is limited to the same idiotiotic, unrealistic and over simplified version of command, control and movement upon the medieval battlefield to avoid spending the time to create an actual simulation and game over which the player has no actual command or control. There is no real difference in forces and weaponry excepting the arbitrarily and lazyily contrived and unrealistic limitations and restrictions placed upon them and no point or advantage in making use of structures, fortifications, terrain and elevations. And the only difference between this total farce and ripoff of the "Rules by Ral" is you can buy a virtual army rather than finding, buying and painting an actual minature one. The game is also fraught with endless bugs, glitches and fatal errors and just another unfinished cheap beta version released as such for maxium profits instead of as a finished playable game and product that the creators have no intentions of and will never be updated, fixed and corrected.

[mgilletly]

I keep reading above of the reassurances that the developers really do know their ancient and medieval history and especially as it relates to military history. This may be so, but no where does it show itself or appear in this game and is a total insult to military history, the capabilities of ancient and medieval forces and the intelligence of the players for which the developers should be forced to apologize, refund all purchases and then be summarily drawn and quartered. And it would be bad enough if this was just another hackneyed release of a supposed actual historical simulation and game which it is, but it's also completely unplayable as such due to the endless crahes, fatal errors and freezes of your entire system and should be removed from anyone being able to purchase this total P.O.S.

[rbodleyscott]

but it's also completely unplayable as such due to the endless crahes, fatal errors and freezes of your entire system

If this is your experience, you should email support@slitherine.co.uk because this game is largely bug and crash free on the vast majority of systems.