Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote:

Navaronegun wrote: We are talking about the same sort of file structure and construction, correct? .bsf, .bam, squads list file with values? I ask, because, obviously, I plan to dip a toe into the modding part.

Yes, but most of the Attribs in the squads file are different.

Excellent! I assumed as much (different attribs).

I see, could be a diferent touch for game add colonial warfare pre XIX century.

rbodleyscott wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:Hi RBS, what do the two musket graphics and the closed helm graphic represent in the lower right of the screenies
My guesses are the helmet represent % armoured?
ist musket: ranged capability?
second ?? no idea....

The first musket icon is a temporary placeholder - it will eventually be a sword and represents close combat rating. The 2nd (really only) musket icon is shooting rating. The helmet is the armour rating.

The first 2 ratings are not actually used by the program to calculate combat results, but are themselves calculated from the combat logic to give the player some idea of the relative combat strengths of the units. However the tooltips give you % win/loss/draw chances for any combat before it is initiated, and a more detailed breakdown of the factors affecting the potential result of any combat is optionally available.

here you say that values show the "fire" and "melee" values i was wrong them because i expect this show the unit composition in arquebus/musket/pistol and pike/sword ... we are going to be unable to know the proportion of this weapons in units??? only know an abstract fire-melee value???

Thanks.

LandMarine47 wrote:Will there be skirmisher units?

Yes. E.g. Croats, Hussars, Cossacks, Tatars, small units of detached musketeers, 16th century arquebusiers and crossbow men etc.

All of these will evade enemy charges if they fancy their chance of outdistancing the charge more than they fancy their chances in close combat.

Scutarii wrote:here you say that values show the "fire" and "melee" values i was wrong them because i expect this show the unit composition in arquebus/musket/pistol and pike/sword ... we are going to be unable to know the proportion of this weapons in units??? only know an abstract fire-melee value???.

No, the % of pike and musket in a unit is reported, along with the percent of any other capability that less than 100% of the unit possesses. E.g. Spanish Early 16thC colunelas - 50% pike, 33% arquebus, 17% swordsmen.

The abstract values just give a rough estimate for those who do not wish to consider capabilities of the unit in detail.

Thanks for the reply.

I see, is good know the % but any chance to select as option see it in numbers???

Good point with skirmisher units they are going to be very usefull in close and rough terrain.

I like the level of detail in unit area and game sounds better and better.

rbodleyscott wrote:

LandMarine47 wrote:Will there be skirmisher units?

Yes. E.g. Croats, Hussars, Cossacks, Tatars, small units of detached musketeers, 16th century arquebusiers and crossbow men etc.

All of these will evade enemy charges if they fancy their chance of outdistancing the charge more than they fancy their chances in close combat.

Curious as to how you are handling dismounted units. Are mounts a unit (wasteful of the 64 unit limit, IMO) or will units which can mount and dismount a "transforming" unit? I.E. APs are expended to essentially change the unit from one type to another?

Navaronegun wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

LandMarine47 wrote:Will there be skirmisher units?

Yes. E.g. Croats, Hussars, Cossacks, Tatars, small units of detached musketeers, 16th century arquebusiers and crossbow men etc.

All of these will evade enemy charges if they fancy their chance of outdistancing the charge more than they fancy their chances in close combat.

Curious as to how you are handling dismounted units. Are mounts a unit (wasteful of the 64 unit limit, IMO) or will units which can mount and dismount a "transforming" unit? I.E. APs are expended to essentially change the unit from one type to another?

Apart from dragoons and sieges, dismounting isn't much of a feature of this period. Dragoons are assumed to mount/dismount appropriately according to circumstances. Essentially they move as if mounted, but fight as if dismounted.

If dismounting is required for any future expansion it will be added.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Navaronegun wrote:
Curious as to how you are handling dismounted units. Are mounts a unit (wasteful of the 64 unit limit, IMO) or will units which can mount and dismount a "transforming" unit? I.E. APs are expended to essentially change the unit from one type to another?

Apart from dragoons and sieges, dismounting isn't much of a feature of this period. Dragoons are assumed to mount/dismount appropriately according to circumstances. Essentially they move as if mounted, but fight as if dismounted.

If dismounting is required for any future expansion it will be added.

Thanks, RBS.

Aryaman wrote: armies of ·=YW were usually multinational,would those units of different nations within each side be represented graphically?

Yes, when the army consisted of allied contingents (e.g. The Catholic army at Nordlingen), not so much when the other nationalities were mercenaries fighting under the flag of their employer.

Perhaps at some point we could have a list of the scenarios its planned to ship with the base game and the 2 expansion modules please? Also as was done with "Field Of Glory Digital" will there be the opportunity for scenario designers to get copies of expansion modules in exchange to contributing scenarios to the game?

Many thanks

Ian

Well, more info is allways wellcome but maybe is a little soon for this... game is not even in beta status and yes, i want know scens and value of expansions but maybe first i want know more about the game like how works the random scen generator, army buy system is like in FOG??? etc etc.

Scutarii wrote:first i want know more about the game like how works the random scen generator, army buy system is like in FOG??? etc etc.

The random map generator produces maps which are appropriate to battlefields in each theatre of conflict. (For example, hedges were a prominent feature of ECW battlefields). The player (challenger in MP games) chooses the size of the battle, and this governs the default size of the map. However, the size can be tweaked.

There are a series of army lists for each nation - to cover each significant historical change in army composition.

For example, German Catholic armies have the following lists:

German Catholic 1618
Catholic League 1619-1632
Imperial 1619-1632
German Catholic 1632-1638
German Catholic 1639-1648

Each list gives the types of units permitted, with minima and maxima for each. These minima and maxima are adjusted according to the overall size of the force.

In random map games you (or the challenger in a MP game - in which case the decision applies to both players) can choose whether to pick your army yourself, within the minima and maxima permitted for the list, or let the computer pick you a typical force. If you do the latter, you get more points worth of troops. The AI picks its own force.

The random map setup allows you (or the challenger in MP games) to pick which 2 army lists will fight (with or without a historical filter) or to take pot luck and let the computer decide the opposing armies (using the historical filter).

The random map setup also (currently) allows the following scenario types:

Attacking enemy who have field fortifications.
Defending field fortifications.
Open battle.
Enemy waiting for reinforcements.
Own side waiting for reinforcements.
Own side sends off-map flanking force.
(The AI side may send flank marches sometimes, but that is controlled by the computer).

The relative size of the opposing forces is adjusted according to the scenario type to make things as even as possible. In single player games, the size of the player's force is also adjusted according to the difficulty setting.

Hoplite1963 wrote:Perhaps at some point we could have a list of the scenarios its planned? to ship with the base game and the 2 expansion modules please?

Sorry, have to save something to announce later

Also as was done with "Field Of Glory Digital" will there be the opportunity for scenario designers to get copies of expansion modules in exchange to contributing scenarios to the game?

That will be for Slitherine (as the publishers) to decide. I imagine they will follow their usual policy on this.

Thanks for the info.

It looks good for me the aproximation to army list.

Ummm in random battles then the map generated adapt to the battle size no??? this is good and bad at same time, i dont know how are this generted maps but maybe we can find maps excesive made as "bottle necks" with now room to try flank on map.

If a good thing you can generate maps adapted to the expansion you play but is possible generate maps out of this limit???.

And a little question, fortifications... how they work??? they are simple a on map bonus provider to defender??? (something like in FOG) or has more impact and they are like buildings you can defend??? here i think if game can deal with more static fortifications like forts or strong points... not to give a full support to siege warfare but made 2 diferent defensive works.

Thanks.

Scutarii wrote:Ummm in random battles then the map generated adapt to the battle size no??? this is good and bad at same time, i dont know how are this generted maps but maybe we can find maps excesive made as "bottle necks" with now room to try flank on map.

The default size depends on the force sizes, but there is an option to use larger maps. The default map sizes are designed to be wide enough not to be bottle-necks, but also not so wide that the armies end up not facing each other. The armies are set out on the map in a sensible initial deployment, which the player can then alter. However, apart from commanded shot and light infantry, the player cannot redeploy infantry within 8 tiles of the side map edges.

And a little question, fortifications... how they work??? they are simple a on map bonus provider to defender??? (something like in FOG) or has more impact and they are like buildings you can defend??? here i think if game can deal with more static fortifications like forts or strong points... not to give a full support to siege warfare but made 2 diferent defensive works.

The game has Light Fortifications (hastily dug field defences), Medium fortifications (elaborate field defences) and Heavy fortifications (stone fortifications).

They each have different effects.

If they are not 4-sided then it is possible to get behind them and attack from an undefended side.

Landscape features such as hedges, field walls and estate walls also have some defensive value - but not as much as fortifications. Such obstacles on a tile edge give defensive value against enemy beyond a hypothetical line extending that tile edge. They don't give any benefit against enemy on the same side of that line. Road hedges (which aren't on the tile edges) are defensible from directions appropriate to the orientation of the road.

Seriously, best news gamewise I've heard in a long time! I kept praying that FOG would get an expansion pack to cover this period; but obviously this seems like a way better option.

Ummm then if i dont understand it bad an unit inside a 4 sides fortification has no rear??? is impossible assault it from a weak side???

I remember very few wargames where fortications work like this, in many wargames you need give a square formation to units to cover all fronts... maybe the only i remember now with this is "Age of rifles" and his special formation to garrison fortifications, trenches and villages.

Thanks for the info.

Scutarii wrote:Ummm then if i dont understand it bad an unit inside a 4 sides fortification has no rear??? is impossible assault it from a weak side???

I remember very few wargames where fortications work like this, in many wargames you need give a square formation to units to cover all fronts... maybe the only i remember now with this is "Age of rifles" and his special formation to garrison fortifications, trenches and villages.

The game assumes that a foot unit inside a 4-sided redoubt has been ordered to defend it, so no special formation order is required. (We don't want to waste the player's time with unnecessary micromanagement).

Note, however, that this only applies to single-tile redoubts or castles. Most fortifications in the game are not 4-sided, so do have weak sides.

Hi RBS, can you address the use of squares vs hexes? I have concerns this might be one of those “sticking points “ that comes up over and over ( like in PC FOGAM where the abstract nature of BG’s having no “size” came up over and over again…)
Ist I am assuming BG’s can moved and shoot “diagonally” ?
If so , based on pythagoras  one is moving and or shooting at a greater real range along diagonals that along “flats” in a square based system. And its not a small amount either, if a square is 2 units of measurement along a length, the center of one square to the center of the 4 squares on flats is also 2 units, however its 2.83 to the center of the 4 squares diagonal….
It might not matter for most weapons and slower moving units, but it might be weird for artillery and or units like cavalry that have high movement rates.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Hi RBS, can you address the use of squares vs hexes? I have concerns this might be one of those “sticking points “ that comes up over and over ( like in PC FOGAM where the abstract nature of BG’s having no “size” came up over and over again…)
Ist I am assuming BG’s can moved and shoot “diagonally” ?
If so , based on pythagoras  one is moving and or shooting at a greater real range along diagonals that along “flats” in a square based system. And its not a small amount either, if a square is 2 units of measurement along a length, the center of one square to the center of the 4 squares on flats is also 2 units, however its 2.83 to the center of the 4 squares diagonal….
It might not matter for most weapons and slower moving units, but it might be weird for artillery and or units like cavalry that have high movement rates.

Yes, the engine allows diagonal movement and shooting, and takes the laws of geometry into account.

For movement purposes the engine uses the approximation of treating diagonal movement as 1.5 times as far as orthogonal movement.

For shooting ranges, the engine reduces the diagonal range but not quite as much as geometry would dictate. e.g. Troops with a shooting range of 4 can shoot 3 squares diagonally, but troops with a shooting range of 2 can shoot 2 squares diagonally (because reducing the the diagonal range to 1 square would be equally inaccurate and a bit harsh).

So the issue of diagonal movement is fully accounted for, and the issue of diagonal shooting is partially accounted for.