A suggestion

[Athos1660]

A world flat and empty as a chessboard ?
I pray the 'Gods' of FoG2 for relief

Are terrains for custom SP battles moddable by scripts ? If so, which ones ?
In addition to the nice random terrains the Vanilla FoG2 series offer, I'd like to be able sometimes to force the map to have say a forest in its centre as it sometimes occurs in P&S. Just for fun (and myself). Is it possible ?

All possible if you are good at programming. The map generation code (and there is a lot of it) is in /Data/Battle/Scrips/MapGenerateBattle.BSF.

That's excellent! Does that mean that we can also create our own tailor-made map types?

If you ever make a basic tutorial, I'm interested.

(That said, vanilla terrains are great imo)

[Cunningcairn]

Thanks for the replies, but the point of the post was not how I could play the way I like. This was an idea how a game about tactical battles will force the players to give a battle.

That is a great idea and would indeed solve the problem of corner sitting but It would also effect the choice of armies. Currently people choose armies with quite different capabilities for example armies with only mounted troops and others with mostly medium. They then rely on terrain suiting their choice. If they don't get suitable terrain they try and avoid contact which in the case of a highly mobile mounted army is still actually "corner sitting". Playing against such armies in their chosen terrain with an army that isn't capable of fighting in that terrain also leads to "corner sitting" or more correctly avoidance tactics. I am not sure if I prefer the richness of army choice we currently have or the dislike of the fact that occasionally someone is going to avoid a battle because of army choice and the given terrain.

[Cunningcairn]

All possible if you are good at programming. The map generation code (and there is a lot of it) is in /Data/Battle/Scrips/MapGenerateBattle.BSF.

That's excellent! Does that mean that we can also create our own tailor-made map types?

If you ever make a basic tutorial, I'm interested.

(That said, vanilla terrains are great imo)

I agree that the current map generation is good.

[SimonLancaster]

I also like the fact that I haven't seen any deep streams running right across the map yet in Medieval. Not sure if someone else has found any!

[Cunningcairn]

I also like the fact that I haven't seen any deep streams running right across the map yet in Medieval. Not sure if someone else has found any!

I don't think the map generators are any different from what I've seen.

Picture1.jpg (64.83 KiB) Viewed 1435 times

[rbodleyscott]

I also like the fact that I haven't seen any deep streams running right across the map yet in Medieval. Not sure if someone else has found any!

I don't think the map generators are any different from what I've seen.

You are correct.

[NikiforosFokas]

[/quote]

That is a great idea and would indeed solve the problem of corner sitting but It would also effect the choice of armies.

For the record, I am 1000% behind NikiforosFokas.

[/quote]

Thanks guys!

[stockwellpete]

I know it is late to change anything for the in-game mechanics. But I want to share an opinion about how the multiplayer experience can become better. I love the game, but I have caught myself avoiding multiplayer, playing only the campaigns. Why? Because most of my games, there is a hill and someone is camping on this. Or in the forests.. You all mean what I mean. I know this had been discussed in length in the past. There was the opinion that this is a tactical decision to avoid the battle, etc. But this is a tactical game, not a strategic or operational one. When we play, we suppose that for any reason, the two forces want to have a battle. Do not forget that there was a simple way to find the winner of the battle in ancient times. The winner was the side that controlled the battlefield at the end of the day.
My simple suggestion comes from my RTS experience (e.g., Dawn of War 1 &2). In that game, some strategic points forced the two players to battle. In fact, the game told you: Oh do you want to turtle in the corner? Fine, do that, but you lose 100%. An excellent idea, in my opinion. The secret why DoW has a multiplayer base almost two decades after its release.
How can this transfer to FoG2? Simply. Put two strategic points in the middle of the battlefield. Just 2, just in the middle. The player who controls both of them for some turns (for example, 5) wins the game. Simply and I think it will create a far more enjoyable game. As I already stated, I know it is late. But I would like to hear RBS's opinion about that.

I think what you might need is a separate "tournament mode" with these 2 points on it, because tournaments is where I think most negative play is likely to occur. Tournament organisers could then choose to make such a facility compulsory or not. I would be strongly in favour of it.

[NikiforosFokas]

I know it is late to change anything for the in-game mechanics. But I want to share an opinion about how the multiplayer experience can become better. I love the game, but I have caught myself avoiding multiplayer, playing only the campaigns. Why? Because most of my games, there is a hill and someone is camping on this. Or in the forests.. You all mean what I mean. I know this had been discussed in length in the past. There was the opinion that this is a tactical decision to avoid the battle, etc. But this is a tactical game, not a strategic or operational one. When we play, we suppose that for any reason, the two forces want to have a battle. Do not forget that there was a simple way to find the winner of the battle in ancient times. The winner was the side that controlled the battlefield at the end of the day.
My simple suggestion comes from my RTS experience (e.g., Dawn of War 1 &2). In that game, some strategic points forced the two players to battle. In fact, the game told you: Oh do you want to turtle in the corner? Fine, do that, but you lose 100%. An excellent idea, in my opinion. The secret why DoW has a multiplayer base almost two decades after its release.
How can this transfer to FoG2? Simply. Put two strategic points in the middle of the battlefield. Just 2, just in the middle. The player who controls both of them for some turns (for example, 5) wins the game. Simply and I think it will create a far more enjoyable game. As I already stated, I know it is late. But I would like to hear RBS's opinion about that.

I think what you might need is a separate "tournament mode" with these 2 points on it, because tournaments is where I think most negative play is likely to occur. Tournament organisers could then choose to make such a facility compulsory or not. I would be strongly in favour of it.

Dear Pete,
It is a real relief to hear that from you. I would really love to see an extra division based on the Advanced guard mode Play just one game of it and you will see what I mean

[stockwellpete]

Dear Pete,
It is a real relief to hear that from you. I would really love to see an extra division based on the Advanced guard mode Play just one game of it and you will see what I mean

I just had a quick look. I couldn't possibly use it as it is in the FOG2 Digital League.

[rbodleyscott]

Dear Pete,
It is a real relief to hear that from you. I would really love to see an extra division based on the Advanced guard mode Play just one game of it and you will see what I mean

I just had a quick look. I couldn't possibly use it as it is in the FOG2 Digital League.

I agree. It isn't meant to be a serious mode suitable for tournament use. Far too much depends on luck.