Slitherine

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:35 am I have a 32 bit system so cannot use the program, so the program acts as the emperor telling me whom to fight. It s nice to be a simple general sometimes, laying blame on my lost battles at the feet of someone else

Sadly with my current Windows XP I cannot even install this wonderful campaign tool, so even play as a general is beyond my power.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:35 am Btw , were you the author of the Peloponnesean war scenario for Toaw3? It was well done.

Yes, it was me! Thank you, it's the first and only feedback I've got after all these years - well, besides "cool counters, dude".

Buying TOAW IV will be the first thing I'll do when I upgrade - unlike FOG2, it doesn't work on XP, or so I have read.

I have a 32 bit system so cannot use the program, so the program acts as the emperor telling me whom to fight. It s nice to be a simple general sometimes, laying blame on my lost battles at the feet of someone else

GrayMouser is actually playing in the 500 CE campaign. If you want to try multiplayer but can't install the app, I can have the AI do your moves (or you can give me a general idea via email) and then let you know the battles to fight. I post screenshots so you can follow your empire's progress.

Nijis wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:39 am GrayMouser is actually playing in the 500 CE campaign. If you want to try multiplayer but can't install the app, I can have the AI do your moves (or you can give me a general idea via email) and then let you know the battles to fight. I post screenshots so you can follow your empire's progress.

Oh, now I understand, he's playing the MP campaign.

Thanks for your (most) generous offer but I have no time for MP right now - I'm busy with some project that hopefully will allow me to upgrade to a new computer, and MP is too time-consuming / demanding right now.

I envy all of you so bad though

Ah, too bad! Any time you, or anyone else, wants to give it a try, it's easy to add new players.

Any word on the future of the tool with regard to the new lists + ally list features in Wolves at the Gate and the associated patch? I feel like the ability to do mixed lists could be fantastic for things like local garrisons in partially assimilated regions, and so on.

I definitely intend to update for Wolves.

As far as I can tell, though, allies are limited to historically realistic lists. It would be great to have an "ahistorical allies" option though, for example, if Rome fights its way to India or the like.

This looks good! It doesnt have an AI for solo play, tho? Does anyone know of a similar program with an AI that allows you to fight a battle in FOG or whatever, then import the results?

This has an AI, so you can play solo. You need to manually enter results.

FoG Empires is a stand-alone game that allows you to import and export FoG battles. It has a much more detailed and engaging realm management system, and the strategy is quite nuanced - ie, if you go in with a "big stack wins" approach, you'll get hurt badly.

I'm redoing Tides of Conquest and I think it will still fill a niche for some players, however, in that it...
1) Will be centered around FoG battles that players can fight at their preferred difficulty level
2) Should move more quickly than FoG Empires, and covers all the periods in FoG 2 and its DLCs
3) Can be player multiplayer

Hi Nijis,

I am interested in this when you start again.

Hi all - new version up, 0.5

Adds:
New system for orders. Armies are taken out, and turns are now four years
Scenarios for 700 and 900 CE
Lots of domestic politics decisions

Planned for the next version:
More detailed treatment of religion in the Middle Ages

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=85060&p=719282#p719282

Downloaded and seems to be running fine. Trying out the first few turns. Are the battles all designed to be fought at a Medium size?

(Something to consider for a future release?) If so, would you consider adding a battle size component (costing more or less resources) that would also impact a turns results? I don't think this could be taken advantage of, as much like the Level of battle II-V, with V costing less resources, a Large Battle Victory may produce greater results (or more catastrophic) but it will cost more. Obviously not east to implement as all the battle sizes at the various difficulty levels would need to be weighed for impact on a comparative scale; i.e. to prevent Small battles at Level V from having too much impact, the same for Large battles won at Level II.

Maybe the Order given (Raid vs Intervention) could help determine battle size? Raids no larger than Medium and Interventions no smaller than Medium? This could be easily tied to resource points expended.

Hopefully I'm not chiming in with too much, as I am just starting to explore the game. Thanks again.

Glad to hear it's working!

I was leaving the Battle Size up to the player. The only problem with giving the player more formal options is that it tends to clutter up the interface. But if you wanted to do Conquest: Large, other battles: Medium, that would be appropriate.

I had a save game issue, the same one that folks can resolve by reading page 9 of this thread. I think it works now, I used 7-Zip instead of RaR and my Norton did not like the Setup file either.

No matter what happens I have already used FoG II armies that I have never tried before, fighting with Syracuse/Epriot Allies vs the Other Syracuse. I think this is the best part of what I am looking for in this program, it connects battles and Campaigns to a larger purpose.

I've tried to use this tool a few times starting several versions ago, but have never gotten it to work properly. The issue for me is the mouse doesn't seem to track on menus and the map properly. In other words, when I move the pointer to a menu item it doesn't high light, but if I search around a bit, I can sometimes find a point on the screen that does high light what I wanted to click. On the maps, the pointer likewise doesn't match up properly, so clicking on one province results in another one getting selected.

I'm running win10 64 bit.

I've had the same results with two different mice, one wireless, the other corded. I've not any similar issues with other software on my system. so this is quite baffling to me.

Any suggestions would be appreciated as I think this would be a fun thing to play around with.

Sorry about that - I'll Google around and see if this comes up with other published MonoGame apps.

Karvon - can you send me a screenshot where your mouse is over one province and it shows another? You can send to my DM, if you like.

I don't know if this will help, but I'm running the game windowed (ie, not a full screen) at 1920 * 1080. I tried with other settings, though, and I didn't encounter any problems.

MonoGame has some issues where mouse position does not return correctly, but I'm not sure any of them apply.

Running the game in windowed mode fixes the mouse problem, but then the display is truncated and the game is unplayable.

Here's a shot with the mouse problem. The province the mouse pointer was on was actually one in India a bit below the pop up box.

What resolution is your monitor set to? I suspect that it needs to be at least 1600 x 900. I can try to make a version that requires less resolution for the next update.

1920 * 1080. I tried some lower resolutions and that didn't help.

It would be nice if there was a config option for what size you wanted the game screen to be. As is, it's non-adjustable; you can't resize the window.