List of dates for DLC?

[Redpossum]

Does there exist somewhere a list of the dates covered by the various DLC?

I own them all, but I haven't been able to assemble a list of what dates they cover. There is partial information on the store page. For example, the text for Wolves at the Gate says -
"This expansion extends Field of Glory II forward to 1040 AD"
and
"...the period covered by the game – now 680 BC-1040 AD."

[rbodleyscott]

Approximately

681-490 BC Rise of Persia
490-280 BC Immortal Fire
280-25 BC Rise of Rome
25BC-476 AD Legions Triumphant
477-600 AD Age of Belisarius
600-1040 AD Wolves at the Gate

[ZeaBed]

Are there still plans for a DLC for 2000 (?) BC to 681 BC? Or is planning for that Swifter than Eagles DLC quietly discontinued?

[rbodleyscott]

Are there still plans for a DLC for 2000 (?) BC to 681 BC?

Yes

Or is planning for that Swifter than Eagles DLC quietly discontinued?

No

[Redpossum]

Approximately

681-490 BC Rise of Persia
490-280 BC Immortal Fire
280-25 BC Rise of Rome
25BC-476 AD Legions Triumphant
477-600 AD Age of Belisarius
600-1040 AD Wolves at the Gate

Thank you very much, RBS

Are there still plans for a DLC for 2000 (?) BC to 681 BC? Or is planning for that Swifter than Eagles DLC quietly discontinued?

Mmmm, that will be entertaining. So from the End of the First Interregnum/Dawn of the Middle Kingdom.
Hyksos Invasion, Sea Peoples, Quadesh, The Late Bronze Age Collapse, the Minoan Empire, the age of Mycenae, The Siege of Troy. the founding of Carthage
Lots of interesting stuff going on in those 13 centuries, and sketchy enough records to fully justify letting your imagination run wild, because nobody can really say you're wrong

[ZeaBed]

Are there still plans for a DLC for 2000 (?) BC to 681 BC? Or is planning for that Swifter than Eagles DLC quietly discontinued?

Mmmm, that will be entertaining. So from the End of the First Interregnum/Dawn of the Middle Kingdom.
Hyksos Invasion, Sea Peoples, Quadesh, The Late Bronze Age Collapse, the Minoan Empire, the age of Mycenae, The Siege of Troy. the founding of Carthage
Lots of interesting stuff going on in those 13 centuries, and sketchy enough records to fully justify letting your imagination run wild, because nobody can really say you're wrong

For Qadesh there are surprisingly complete records and for the Wars of the Sea Peoples against the Egypt of Ramesses III there are the carvings of his mortuary temple and even a papyrus scroll. But we know enough about warfare capabilities in different eras of that long time period to avoid, if not prevent (that being impossible), some truly asinine revisionism for convenience or mere lack of any rigor whatsoever. That said, there's enough room for some decent, creative imagination for every battle in every era, as long as "creativity" is grounded in the firm structure of what we do know.

[SimonLancaster]

I know very little about the pre-Classical period but I am all for getting another DLC out for FoG 2 Ancients. It has been overlooked because of the success of Medieval. It would be great to have another brand new DLC for Ancients and revive the game a little bit!

[Redpossum]

Are there still plans for a DLC for 2000 (?) BC to 681 BC? Or is planning for that Swifter than Eagles DLC quietly discontinued?

Mmmm, that will be entertaining. So from the End of the First Interregnum/Dawn of the Middle Kingdom.
Hyksos Invasion, Sea Peoples, Quadesh, The Late Bronze Age Collapse, the Minoan Empire, the age of Mycenae, The Siege of Troy. the founding of Carthage
Lots of interesting stuff going on in those 13 centuries, and sketchy enough records to fully justify letting your imagination run wild, because nobody can really say you're wrong

For Qadesh there are surprisingly complete records and for the Wars of the Sea Peoples against the Egypt of Ramesses III there are the carvings of his mortuary temple and even a papyrus scroll. But we know enough about warfare capabilities in different eras of that long time period to avoid, if not prevent (that being impossible), some truly asinine revisionism for convenience or mere lack of any rigor whatsoever. That said, there's enough room for some decent, creative imagination for every battle in every era, as long as "creativity" is grounded in the firm structure of what we do know.

Hmmm, "truly asinine revisionism" is rather strong language, don't you think?
My sincere apologies if I have given offense. It was never my intention to question anyone's dedication to historical veracity. I do understand and acknowledge that the team behind FOG II have given the full weight of their long experience and scholarly understanding to the project, and the game is truly outstanding. I am enjoying it very much in all its forms.

My comments were born of my enthusiasm for both history and historical fiction. My original forum name was "possum", (there was a forum glitch many years ago and I was forced to create a new account as Redpossum). Waaaay back in 2006, I was the guy who created the Britannicus mod for Legion Arena. That was entirely a work of imagination, kindled by a brief passage in "Claudius the God" by Robert Graves. Yes, I did enough research to make it mesh around the edges with known historical fact, but it was still the product of my own fevered imagination. Yet, it seemed to be received well, for the most part.

Obviously every game is a compromise between game and simulation, and I'm not suggesting that there is any comparison between Legion Arena and FOG II on that score. FOG II was born of the miniatures rules of the same name, I realize that, and the miniatures community has always been far more dedicated to historicity than the boardgame community which was the ancestor of most computer games today.

Back some 50 years ago, there was a set of miniatures rules called Chainmail, and it was the fantasy supplement in the back of that rules book which inspired Gary Gygax and his accomplices to create Dungeons and Dragons, which took the world by storm and still survives today. I played the old original D&D in the late 70's, when it was just three little books. My point here is just that those of us with a taste for the fantastical and fictional may well be the branch of the family whose shields bear the bar sinister, but we are still part of the family. You may scorn us for our lack of purity, but we're not going to go away.

[ZeaBed]

Oh I know that you’re not going away. You might even become the dominant force and change the FoG experience from historically based to pure fantasy. The figurines may even be changed to cartoon-like troll creatures. Sign of the times. Ok. You stay, we go.

[Redpossum]

Oh I know that you’re not going away. You might even become the dominant force and change the FoG experience from historically based to pure fantasy. The figurines may even be changed to cartoon-like troll creatures. Sign of the times. Ok. You stay, we go.

That was not the point. The point is that we can live together and get along. There doesn't need to be conflict between us. Because we are not two separate groups. I love FOG II as it is, I just have a certain inclination to also do some other things with it, which is why mods exist, no?

[ZeaBed]

I doubt it. It looks like pretty soon there will only be a non historical format with no historical versions. That’s not precisely getting along. And since the custom scenarios for FoG Medieval are few and far between (as opposed to FoG-1), the idea of getting along is IMO irrelevant and disingenuous. Getting along, which we all do even when disagreeing (not a modern concept, I know) is not the issue here. The point is the nature of a game that was based from the beginning in historically based scenarios, changing into something else. Not for the better IMO. Far from it. Just my two cents after playing historical simulation war games since 1968.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I doubt it. It looks like pretty soon there will only be a non historical format with no historical versions. That’s not precisely getting along. And since the custom scenarios for FoG Medieval are few and far between (as opposed to FoG-1), the idea of getting along is IMO irrelevant and disingenuous. Getting along, which we all do even when disagreeing (not a modern concept, I know) is not the issue here. The point is the nature of a game that was based from the beginning in historically based scenarios, changing into something else. Not for the better IMO. Far from it. Just my two cents after playing historical simulation war games since 1968.

What are you talking about? There is no indication of a change of course from what we have so far in FoG, an interpretation that is historical within the confines of the game engine. We might quibble about conflicting interpretations, but fantasy has not been an element. Richard, the lead dev, has been designing wargames since the 70s - not that it should matter when someone has been playing or designing since - if they know what they're talking about they know what they're talking about, regardless of age.

Also, it's okay for multiple things to exist. If there was a FoG Middle Earth, I would play the hell out of that, in addition to FoG historical. One need not replace the other.

[Dux Limitis]

Oh I know that you’re not going away. You might even become the dominant force and change the FoG experience from historically based to pure fantasy. The figurines may even be changed to cartoon-like troll creatures. Sign of the times. Ok. You stay, we go.

I think you need to stay,this is the best digtal tabletop war game on the market nowadays(At least until now),speak about the historical accuracy,it's already as accurate as it could be,although not totally,I have to say.But at least,I think we can make suggests,and some of my suggestions were been accepted.If people who prefer historical accuracy(And not that many in this forum)are leaving I think soon after we'll be left with mostly gamers,you can see them already through the forum,I think most of the folks don't care about the historical things much than the points,rules,multiplayer tournaments etc.Like some sorts of e-sports.The most hilarious thing is,with my limited FoG multiplayer experiences(Mostly Medieval),I didn't see any of them use the historical Medieval tactics with a knightly army.But the even more laughable thing is three in every five of them used chequer board formations(Obviously they wanna ZOC locked the mounted knights),which didn't exist in Medieval(This kind of ZOC lock either,getting your infantry stand right in front of the enemy heavy cavalry,preventing them from moving and charge through the adjacent gaps).All they have in mind is how to use the ZOC lock(More serious before the ZOC rules changed)and use the generals as the buffouts(I think the general's +50 POA is way to high)and traffic controllers,so I give up with the multiplayer without thinking.

[Dux Limitis]

I doubt it. It looks like pretty soon there will only be a non historical format with no historical versions. That’s not precisely getting along. And since the custom scenarios for FoG Medieval are few and far between (as opposed to FoG-1), the idea of getting along is IMO irrelevant and disingenuous. Getting along, which we all do even when disagreeing (not a modern concept, I know) is not the issue here. The point is the nature of a game that was based from the beginning in historically based scenarios, changing into something else. Not for the better IMO. Far from it. Just my two cents after playing historical simulation war games since 1968.

Yeah,I'm starting to think about it shortly after the Crécy thread,they can make compromises to the historical accuracy,that's indeed,if sometimes they need to strike a balance between it and the playability,then they'll do.I'm afraid,if it really goes straight on this way,perhaps one day it will become a turn-based Total War.But it's too early to say for now,I think we'd better continue to observe it.

[ZeaBed]

Yeah. Good luck. The writing’s on the wall. I’m no good at whistling past the graveyard.

[wzfcns]

Oh I know that you’re not going away. You might even become the dominant force and change the FoG experience from historically based to pure fantasy. The figurines may even be changed to cartoon-like troll creatures. Sign of the times. Ok. You stay, we go.

I think you need to stay,this is the best digtal tabletop war game on the market nowadays(At least until now),speak about the historical accuracy,it's already as accurate as it could be,although not totally,I have to say.But at least,I think we can make suggests,and some of my suggestions were been accepted.If people who prefer historical accuracy(And not that many in this forum)are leaving I think soon after we'll be left with mostly gamers,you can see them already through the forum,I think most of the folks don't care about the historical things much than the points,rules,multiplayer tournaments etc.Like some sorts of e-sports.The most hilarious thing is,with my limited FoG multiplayer experiences(Mostly Medieval),I didn't see any of them use the historical Medieval tactics with a knightly army.But the even more laughable thing is three in every five of them used chequer board formations(Obviously they wanna ZOC locked the mounted knights),which didn't exist in Medieval(This kind of ZOC lock either,getting your infantry stand right in front of the enemy heavy cavalry,preventing them from moving and charge through the adjacent gaps).All they have in mind is how to use the ZOC lock(More serious before the ZOC rules changed)and use the generals as the buffouts(I think the general's +50 POA is way to high)and traffic controllers,so I give up with the multiplayer without thinking.

In terms of the appearance of the army and the composition of the army list, I think the degree of restoration is still satisfactory. The biggest lack may be the command and control system, making different armies do not reflect the structural differences in history between them.I don't really know if the tabletop version of FOG has one of these systems.
After all, there is currently no activation mechanism for FOG2, so the role of the general is not as obvious. I personally still hope that GBOH or MOI can be electronic, but unfortunately the last attempt seems to have been in 2004.