Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 11:53 am

PolishDragoon wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 12:32 pm Field of Glory 2 is a game which I love the most, next to some WW2 wargames. I have played many, many hours in FOG 2 and the only one thing which I dream to add is some (maybe minimal) operational aspects of sandbox campaign. In current state we have one or two decision between battles and I would love to see it enriched. Not necessary like in case of Pike and Shot Campaigns (whole operational map added), but maybe a more developped decision tree between battles or option of leader customization (like in RPG games) would be a wonderful experience.

Thanks for your feedback.

Can you be more specific about what you would like to see? (Excluding the possibility of a map)

slithpile wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 12:43 am My issue with Campaign Maps and higher level strategic gameplay is this. The goal of strategy is to match your strength against their weakness. If you do strategy right, you are specifically avoiding fair fights.

But Tactical Games like Field of Glory are at their best when the two sides are evenly matched.

So if you mix Strategy and Tactics in one game, you can either make the Strategy consequential and fun, or you can make the Tactics consequential and fun. You can't have both. Thats my problem with games like Total War.

Thats why I love the Field of Glory 2 campaign mode so much. It keeps the focus firmly on the excellent tactical action, while providing just enough carryover between battles to paint a story and make you care about the units.

Any new Campaign Mode for future games needs to delicately walk that line.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 7:52 am

slithpile wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 12:43 am My issue with Campaign Maps and higher level strategic gameplay is this. The goal of strategy is to match your strength against their weakness. If you do strategy right, you are specifically avoiding fair fights.

But Tactical Games like Field of Glory are at their best when the two sides are evenly matched.

So if you mix Strategy and Tactics in one game, you can either make the Strategy consequential and fun, or you can make the Tactics consequential and fun. You can't have both. Thats my problem with games like Total War.

Thats why I love the Field of Glory 2 campaign mode so much. It keeps the focus firmly on the excellent tactical action, while providing just enough carryover between battles to paint a story and make you care about the units.

Any new Campaign Mode for future games needs to delicately walk that line.

Agreed.

We do have some thoughts on how to achieve this.

ilpars wrote: ↑Tue Jan 06, 2026 2:18 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 7:52 am

slithpile wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 12:43 am My issue with Campaign Maps and higher level strategic gameplay is this. The goal of strategy is to match your strength against their weakness. If you do strategy right, you are specifically avoiding fair fights.

But Tactical Games like Field of Glory are at their best when the two sides are evenly matched.

So if you mix Strategy and Tactics in one game, you can either make the Strategy consequential and fun, or you can make the Tactics consequential and fun. You can't have both. Thats my problem with games like Total War.

Thats why I love the Field of Glory 2 campaign mode so much. It keeps the focus firmly on the excellent tactical action, while providing just enough carryover between battles to paint a story and make you care about the units.

Any new Campaign Mode for future games needs to delicately walk that line.

Agreed.

We do have some thoughts on how to achieve this.

I love combining higher level strategy gameplay with tactical battles. If the strategy game have the option to avoid battles (maybe with some casualty due to cavalry pursuit) unfair battles will not be a big proplem.

rbodleyscott wrote: We did that in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, but people complained that the AI kept retreating from their mega-armies. (And vice versa, but they did not complain about that!)

It is a bit of a no-win situation for game designers, if the battles are to be tactically fun.

rbodleyscott wrote: It is a bit of a no-win situation for game designers, if the battles are to be tactically fun.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 12:03 pm
We did that in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, but people complained that the AI kept retreating from their mega-armies. (And vice versa, but they did not complain about that!)

It is a bit of a no-win situation for game designers, if the battles are to be tactically fun.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 08, 2026 5:33 pm ...
It shouldn't be automatic in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, both for the IA and the player. Retreating could be made possible say 66% of the time (or less).
...

if (((army1Strength <= comparator) && (proportionFoot >= 33)) || (FXRand(0,99) < 34)) // Defender will set up defensive position.

Cronos09 wrote:

Athos1660 wrote: ...
It shouldn't be automatic in Pike and Shot Campaigns and Sengoku Jidai, both for the IA and the player. Retreating could be made possible say 66% of the time (or less).
...

I think, if you add to the file CampaignTools.bsf in the corresponding condition || (FXRand(0,99) < 34) like this

Code: Select all

if (((army1Strength <= comparator) && (proportionFoot >= 33)) || (FXRand(0,99) < 34)) // Defender will set up defensive position.

then the retreating will occur with a probability of 66 percent.