Musings on the five elements of FOGII

[nyczar]

I’ve played FOG II now 3,648 hours which is the equivalent of two years of work and I still love this game. I can’t say that about any other game and I have played my fair share.
I have always struggled to put words to why I find the game so compelling, but it wasn’t until I saw a Netflix series called The Queen’s Gambit that it crystalized for me why this game has engrossed me since its release in late 2017.

The Queen’s Gambit is a fictional story about a chess player rising through the chess ranks in the U.S. during the 1960’s. Leaving the dramatic story aside, the series was a love affair of chess…. the openings, the mid game, and the end game.
It was during the commentary on chess strategy that it struck me that our game has not three but five stages: list choice, force placement, and then the same as chess…. the opening, the mid and the end game.

Therein is my affection for the game. The depth never ends given the map variations, the endless set of “what if” choices, and the famous (and infamous) RNG that can make any human calculation or plan evaporate in the chaos of chance.

As I have played and grown, losing my first multiplayer match 40-0 to now being at least a modest threat vs our top players, what I find is my greatest struggle is list choice and force placement.
I lament that our community is a small band of brothers because were we larger there would be a place one could go see a game played live between our top players, complete with commentary.
How much I would prefer watching that than the US news! Given the terrain, how much I would enjoy, for example, hearing/seeing the benefits and weakness of deploying a long line vs one that is narrow and deep.

There are some in our community who see a battle with amazing vision. I am not one of them. I have had to learn, painfully, how to put the five elements together to win. But improve I have and 5,000 hours here I come.

[garymann]

sorry off topic , but "Queens Gambit" is a great series, so engrossing. Understand this posting completely. nyczar with you 100%!

[Jagger2002]

what I find is my greatest struggle is list choice and force placement.

So many games are won or lost right there. And I agree, it is often the toughest part of the game.

[Geffalrus]

Snugglebunnies' series on youtube does a great job providing gameplay with commentary. Highly recommend for anyone who hasn't already checked it out. Only thing missing is that the format is inherently one sided since he can't have an active conversation with the other player. And I think that's where the true genius of FoG2 comes out - looking into the minds of the players as they plot out strategies that fall apart as each player reacts and counter-reacts to the moves of the other.

I really like that conception of the 5 elements. I'm going to use that from now on. Very well stated.

[SimonLancaster]

Richard Yorke also does a good commentary on YouTube of games he plays. There are several others as well if you search on YouTube.

I agree that the game is fantastic. Main improvements for me would focus on the maps and terrain. Let’s see how it looks in the new game!

[SnuggleBunnies]

Only thing missing is that the format is inherently one sided since he can't have an active conversation with the other player. And I think that's where the true genius of FoG2 comes out - looking into the minds of the players as they plot out strategies that fall apart as each player reacts and counter-reacts to the moves of the other.

In fact this is sort of possible right now. Richard Yorke and I played a match using Steam Remote Play, using a hotseat game, while voice chatting on discord. It was really fun to play while discussing move and countermove, but as it's a workaround there were two downsides -

1) No point hiding units as both players could see everything. Takes away ambushes and scouting, which are a rather big part of the game.
2) It was laggy for one player, though maybe that's because of the distances involved with Richard in the UK and myself in the American Midwest.

[Geffalrus]

In fact this is sort of possible right now. Richard Yorke and I played a match using Steam Remote Play, using a hotseat game, while voice chatting on discord. It was really fun to play while discussing move and countermove, but as it's a workaround there were two downsides -

1) No point hiding units as both players could see everything. Takes away ambushes and scouting, which are a rather big part of the game.
2) It was laggy for one player, though maybe that's because of the distances involved with Richard in the UK and myself in the American Midwest.

That makes a lot of sense, because unless you're using two armies that basically just want to smash into each other and trust in RNGesus to deliver victory, tricks/traps/bamboozles are the main way to get an advantage against another player. Especially important when you're using dynamically balanced armies like a medium foot force vs. a heavy foot or cavalry force.

Have you considered doing a replay cast type of thing? Where you and the other player rewatch a match you played together and talk about what you were trying to do, what failed and when, and other thoughts on the matchup.

[Gnaeus]

@SnuggleBunnies: Yes, please consider doing another joint series. It's really interesting and useful.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Personally I'm not sure if the 'endgame' stage is consistent. Sometimes a match moves from climax to endgame very abruptly. Sometimes after an initial phase of contact the survivors of the two forces draw back without a conclusion. Sometimes we have bloodless draws! But I do agree that there is a very distinct difference between early maneuver/skirmishing to full on combat. The flow of the game seems to be a gradually decreasing level of control as the match goes on, with the losing player forced to take greater and greater risks to attempt to recover, and the winning player trying to minimize needless risks.

Have you considered doing a replay cast type of thing? Where you and the other player rewatch a match you played together and talk about what you were trying to do, what failed and when, and other thoughts on the matchup.

Again, this is sort of doable, but there are problems -

1) We could connect on discord. I play the recorded match with no sound, stream my screen to the other player, and record while we discuss. The downside of this is that it would play through my turns very slowly (as my footage includes me trying to figure out what to do) and my opponents' very quickly, as it would be the automated replay.

2) Both players record during the 'replay opponent turn' phase OR their own phase only. One player would update their segments, the other would splice them all together. Then view using discord, streaming, etc. This would require upload space/time etc - a typical recorded match of mine is about 10GB before being put together. Not a huge deal, but one more step in the process.

So... possible, but difficult and awkward. We can hope that the distant future brings us an in game replay system.

[Geffalrus]

Again, this is sort of doable, but there are problems -

1) We could connect on discord. I play the recorded match with no sound, stream my screen to the other player, and record while we discuss. The downside of this is that it would play through my turns very slowly (as my footage includes me trying to figure out what to do) and my opponents' very quickly, as it would be the automated replay.

2) Both players record during the 'replay opponent turn' phase OR their own phase only. One player would update their segments, the other would splice them all together. Then view using discord, streaming, etc. This would require upload space/time etc - a typical recorded match of mine is about 10GB before being put together. Not a huge deal, but one more step in the process.

So... possible, but difficult and awkward. We can hope that the distant future brings us an in game replay system.

A dedicated replay system would be amazing.

Personally, I don't think the relative slowness of your turn vs. the other player's turn would be that big a deal. Obviously, you're the expert on this as it's your content. Perhaps it would work best as a follow-up episode? So viewers have the traditional episode, and then they can have the replay episode with your opponent's perspective as additional content. Just a thought. Happy to be the guinea pig if that helps.

[kronenblatt]

... The flow of the game seems to be a gradually decreasing level of control as the match goes on ...
... The losing player forced to take greater and greater risks to attempt to recover...
... The winning player trying to minimize needless risks...

The above are spot-on aspects and insights that I hadn't really thought about, at least not consciously. OK that it's better to be winning than losing, but it also makes the early- and especially the mid-game additionally important, putting the opponent into some sort of (real or perceived) disadvantage (doesn't have to be large or even existing, as long as the opponent thinks it's threatening to the outcome), forcing or inducing him to take greater and unnecessary risks in order to avoid "losing". I get that feeling myself very often (whether "winning" or "losing") and then need to restrain my risk taking. Also, a challenge for me when actually "winning" is to cut down on the risk taking.