The problem of custom battles

[Athos1660]

I don't know P&S but I understand that the way evasion/pursuing works (with the AI instead of player) is needed to do per email game, so that you can play you own turn on your own.

In P&S most of the units might pursue. In FoG2, the units that are likely to pursue are rarer (especially infantry).
Moreover, in P&S, the probabilities of pursuing are higher.

[stockwellpete]

I don't know what percentage of players just play SP in FOG2, but I expect it is very high, probably well over 75%. And I would imagine it is a similar figure to what was true for FOG1. But in FOG1 you did have tick box options for "double moves" and "fog of war", so that players who liked these extra features could choose to use them. I did raise this possibility for FOG2 at the beginning of its development, but was told that this would divide players into separate groups. I never really accepted this argument, and, of course, the main division is already between those who just play SP and those who just play MP. Again, in terms of extending the life of a game that is 4 years old now, I think the decision about tick boxes could be reviewed. There are a number of themes that could be included in a 2 or 3 tick box menu, including "anarchy", command and control, and modified skirmishers. All these would add extra skill challenges to the game, but they could be ignored if preferred.

[Athos1660]

I guess dividing the playerbase with tick box options is an issue for everyday MP. The more there are options, the harder it is to find an human opponent who wants to play with the same options as you. On the contrary, I think the more there are options in SP, the better it is for sales, marketing, etc. : each SP player can play as he wishes. On the other hand, I am also sure that MP players like playing tournaments with special rules and mods from time to time too.

NB : there's also another fact : this is a small devs team with limited ressources !

[stockwellpete]

The tick boxes in FOG1 were not a problem at all, as far as I can remember. Most players enjoyed both options.

[kronenblatt]

I like the idea of additional tick boxes in the base game, with priority given to those aspects and features that cannot be modded (or at least not easily modded), such as Line of sight LoS (whether it's possible to see behind a unit or not, etc.), choosing units before actually seeing the map, etc.

This said, range of LoS (currently 20?) could in my view preferably be adjusted within the base game, whether (easily) modded or not. That simple option would in itself create a lot of new dynamics into FoG2 at hopefully a low development cost.

[SuitedQueens]

I don't know what percentage of players just play SP in FOG2, but I expect it is very high, probably well over 75%. I never really accepted this argument, and, of course, the main division is already between those who just play SP and those who just play MP.

I think thats because vast majority of games are very similar and straightforward, players are not willing to go outside the box with all possibilities that those games allow. There are really no point to play MP when you can setup the same matches against more competent Rise of AI (2-3 turns before engagement especially so).

There are a number of themes that could be included in a 2 or 3 tick box menu, including "anarchy", command and control, and modified skirmishers. All these would add extra skill challenges to the game, but they could be ignored if preferred.

Alternative gameplay mod have those changes and you can't affect them by any meaningful way, so what they will add is RNG element devoid of any skill based interactions.

[oriel]

With reference to SLancaster's scouting claims- I am not a Warerloo buff - but was it not so that when Blucher's Prussians
started to enter the field, Napoleon was not sure if they were French or Prussian? I think alot of wargamers vastly over estimate real life scouting results...

[stockwellpete]

Alternative gameplay mod have those changes and you can't affect them by any meaningful way, so what they will add is RNG element devoid of any skill based interactions.

I am not sure what you mean here. I was one of the two people who developed the Alternative Gameplay Mod. The "anarchy" and command and control changes added new elements of skill and were not solely reliant on RNG outcomes.

[SimonLancaster]

With reference to SLancaster's scouting claims- I am not a Warerloo buff - but was it not so that when Blucher's Prussians
started to enter the field, Napoleon was not sure if they were French or Prussian? I think alot of wargamers vastly over estimate real life scouting results...

Initially, that is true. They were far off in the distance. Then they were recognised and Napoleon let his soldiers falsely believe that it was the French reinforcements coming. Then the Imperial Guard were committed in order to try to win the day despite the Prussians.

[rbodleyscott]

I don't know if you played FOG1 at all, but the pre-battle system was interesting. You picked your army first; then there was a map selection process that included your general's capability, the amount of cavalry/light horse in your army and then a d6 roll. If you won this roll (the general and cavalry generated modifiers) then you were shown a screen with 4 maps on it. You could see the main features of these maps, but not all the detail, and then you chose one of them. Your opponent then went first. You could opt to have "fog of war" and "double moves" switched on.

So that system does the answer the "scouting" issue quite well. A few LH in your army selection could give you a +1 modifier that was decisive in the d6 roll. I imagine that there would be quite a bit of work involved in reproducing something similar to this for FOG2, not least because the maps in FOG2 are so much better than what we had in FOG1. Whether a simpler, different type of system could do the same thing for FOG2, I don't know, but this pre-battle feature is something that I miss from FOG1.

Okay, that kind of set-up seems interesting. If you won the dice roll then you would see four maps and choose from one and your opponent wouldn't have any idea what kind of battlefield he was fighting on?

Winning the roll and having the advantage of choosing one from four maps with the enemy seeing the outline (like you) of the selected map would seem best for me.

You chose your army comp before map selection in fog1 anyway

And in FOG2 until my mentors at Slitherine insisted that the "game" would be better if force selection was done on the actual battlefield.

Obviously from a simulation point of view that was wrong, but from a game point of view it did (in my opinion) improve the game. It was a hell of a lot of work for Pip and I to implement it, as it isn't the way the engine worked before. So we won't be changing it back!

[stockwellpete]

And in FOG2 until my mentors at Slitherine insisted that the "game" would be better if force selection was done on the actual battlefield.

Obviously from a simulation point of view that was wrong, but from a game point of view it did (in my opinion) improve the game. It was a hell of a lot of work for Pip and I to implement it, as it isn't the way the engine worked before. So we won't be changing it back!

No, not changing it back, but adding army selection before seeing the map as an extra option in the game? As FOG1 did with double moves and "fog of war". Schweetness has succeeded in blocking off the map in the army selection screen for the alternative Gameplay Mod.

[deeter]

As I recall, the multiple map system in FOG I only came about because many players requested it, as did being able to select evasion stances. I miss both of them.

Deeter

[BMAXIMUS]

... but from a game point of view it did (in my opinion) improve the game.

I agree with that, so please don't change it, who can do more can do less. I'm sure people who really want a blind force selection in MP could find a way. The first I can think of, is that both player "publish" somehow a password protected force seletion, start the game and at some point during the game give each other the password allowing to check that the units selected matches what has been announced.

[Jagger2002]

So after reading through the entire 3 pages of discussion, the only point that really appealed to me was the FOG1 pre-battle system. That sounded very intriguing without any real gameplay change...maybe possible...and then....

RBS, So we won't be changing it back!

...

[stockwellpete]

As I recall, the multiple map system in FOG I only came about because many players requested it, as did being able to select evasion stances. I miss both of them.

Deeter

Yes, it wasn't there right at the start, was it? It was a very good addition.

[stockwellpete]

You can move the armies closer together in Custom Battles by clicking on "Show Advanced Settings" and reducing the map height. The default map height is 32. The minimum permitted height (to allow room for the armies to deploy) is 26, which leaves only 2 squares between the opposing deployment areas for light troops.

I have been trying this out at minimum height 26 and it is better. There is no time for unrealistic re-deployments, the enemy skirmishers start shooting at you from Turn 1.

[Athos1660]

You can't have your cake and eat it too...

If you don't like it as is, maybe ask Schweetness101 whether or not he can mod you lights unable to move (AP=0) and/or shoot during the 1st turn. Or reduce their APs per turn. Or don't take lights. Or mod lists without lights.

[stockwellpete]

I don't know what percentage of players just play SP in FOG2, but I expect it is very high, probably well over 75%. And I would imagine it is a similar figure to what was true for FOG1. But in FOG1 you did have tick box options for "double moves" and "fog of war", so that players who liked these extra features could choose to use them. I did raise this possibility for FOG2 at the beginning of its development, but was told that this would divide players into separate groups. I never really accepted this argument, and, of course, the main division is already between those who just play SP and those who just play MP. Again, in terms of extending the life of a game that is 4 years old now, I think the decision about tick boxes could be reviewed. There are a number of themes that could be included in a 2 or 3 tick box menu, including "anarchy", command and control, and modified skirmishers. All these would add extra skill challenges to the game, but they could be ignored if preferred.

I have just read the latest Developer's Diary for Europa Universalis 4 on Steam and they have this paragraph . . .

By the amount of games played in a single day, 51% are regular single player games, 44% are ironman games, and 5% are multiplayer games. However, this does not tell the entire story, as one of the game-types include a fair bit more players. On any given day, about 13.7% of all players play multiplayer games, about 39,7% play an ironman game, and 62.3% play a normal single player game. This of course adds up to far more than 100%, but many people play more than 1 game mode in a single day.

So, roughly about 1 in 8 players play MP with Europa Universalis. I suppose the figure is fairly similar for FOG2.

[stockwellpete]

You can't have your cake and eat it too...

If you don't like it as is, maybe ask Schweetness101 whether or not he can mod you lights unable to move (AP=0) and/or shoot during the 1st turn. Or reduce their APs per turn. Or don't take lights. Or mod lists without lights.

Amazingly, you have got the wrong end of the stick with one of my posts again. I was clearly making the point that I thought the game was better with the height of the map reduced to 26 squares, because the action started straight away and there was no time for ahistorical re-deployments. I was most definitely not complaining about the AI's skirmishers shooting at me.

Regarding LF skirmishers, I am now fairly convinced (or I have convinced myself) that the game doesn't really need them and that, in their current form, they detract enormously from what I understand to be historically accurate behaviours of ancient and medieval armies (please note this a subjective evaluation on my part and I may be wrong about it).

Skirmishers did not win battles, but they do in FOG2. Isolated small contingents of light horse did not very often charge into the rear of formed infantry and cause "disruptions", but they regularly do in FOG2. And foot skirmishers did not spend the whole battle running about shooting at the enemy, and then evading. Which they do a lot in FOG2. Particularly, they did not congregate to hunt down enemy cavalry who have the misfortune (in FOG2) to break through their enemy's main battle line.

If I was able to mod myself, I would experiment with javelinmen, slingers and archers all being MF and LH being cavalry. And I would have a "skirmish" function (like pikes forming a square) for them where they could fight in more open formations, when required. Otherwise they would behave as irregular foot or archers. A variation on this idea would be to allow around 25% of an irregular foot or archer unit to detach itself (and re-join) in a skirmish line during the battle.

Schweetness101 has returned to his studies now, so he will not be modding again until next year, when I hope we will be able to collaborate on various late medieval aspects, including the longbow and my future War of the Roses scenario series (in development already) and text campaign (already written). I doubt there will be any skirmishers in these scenarios. The only issue I have will be with the handgunners, who I expect are going to be LF when they arrive. I think I might prefer to depict them as part of a mixed unit (billmen/handgunners with extra POA for shooting) rather than as skirmishers. I'll have to see nearer the time.

[kronenblatt]

I don't know what percentage of players just play SP in FOG2, but I expect it is very high, probably well over 75%. And I would imagine it is a similar figure to what was true for FOG1. But in FOG1 you did have tick box options for "double moves" and "fog of war", so that players who liked these extra features could choose to use them. I did raise this possibility for FOG2 at the beginning of its development, but was told that this would divide players into separate groups. I never really accepted this argument, and, of course, the main division is already between those who just play SP and those who just play MP. Again, in terms of extending the life of a game that is 4 years old now, I think the decision about tick boxes could be reviewed. There are a number of themes that could be included in a 2 or 3 tick box menu, including "anarchy", command and control, and modified skirmishers. All these would add extra skill challenges to the game, but they could be ignored if preferred.

I have just read the latest Developer's Diary for Europa Universalis 4 on Steam and they have this paragraph . . .

By the amount of games played in a single day, 51% are regular single player games, 44% are ironman games, and 5% are multiplayer games. However, this does not tell the entire story, as one of the game-types include a fair bit more players. On any given day, about 13.7% of all players play multiplayer games, about 39,7% play an ironman game, and 62.3% play a normal single player game. This of course adds up to far more than 100%, but many people play more than 1 game mode in a single day.

So, roughly about 1 in 8 players play MP with Europa Universalis. I suppose the figure is fairly similar for FOG2.

I'd personally expect the proportion of MP to be higher in FoG2 than EU4, due to the scope of the games. For example, it seems easier to have a quick leisure MP game in FoG2, just creating an open challenge in-game.

But then again I've never played MP in EU4 and am now playing only MP in FoG2 so wouldn't really know, apart from my own subjective experience. And we by definition tend to notice MP much more since in itself generates more activity in the forums and PBEM than the silent SP...