Field of Glory Road Map

[Morbio]

Anarchy will be prevented if the unit would end in terrain that disorders it - it doesnt matter the odds of winning the combat.

That's what I thought you meant, thanks for the clarification.

By baggage we mean camp.

OK, that's good. It will certainly force some tactical decision from the commander, before it was a no-brainer, mobility and position easily beat the 2 points at risk!

Double moves allow redeployment of troops behind the lines. It is only possible if out of range of enemies so not used when close up. If you are screening your main force with light troops you'll be able to double move but the enemy wont because of your lights.

Thanks to everyone for the explanation. I'm still not 100% convinced, but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it.

Evades are not subject to anarchy.

I think I used the wrong term here, what I meant was a refusal of orders... so that occasionally, those that should evade get caught (or chose to fight), or those that should stand evade.

Break off is not on our list for now. Working out if the unit gains from a break off or not is almost impossible so it is unlikely this will ever change. All we can do is look at the mechanics and it either will be able to or not based on the space avaialble, not on whether it gains from it.

I think that's fair enough, although my 2 criticisms were based on "zones of control" and distance rather than an evaluation of gain

Once again, thanks for listening, and I'm really excited by the list of improvements

[gabeeg]

I know I had asked about a roadmap in a previous post...and I am glad you posted it, and it looks great... The only problem now is that I become impatient waiting for all these goodies! ...in some ways ignorance is bliss

This really is an outstanding list of fixes and improvements.

[76mm]

I'm still confused about these double moves. Some units "behind the lines" and with a commander can move twice as fast? Why? Something about reserves?

[Toby42]

The double move on the TT is only available to units with a leader attached either directly of to a battleline the unit is part of. The entire move must begin and end outside of 6 inches (hf move 3 inches on the tt) and can only be a simple advance. It's a great feature when taken together with initiative.

Whoever loses initiaitve moves first but can usually double move the skirmishers very far onto the map effectively slowing the other army down. It's very useful for HF armies to lose initiative in order to gain the first move. This coupled with agression settings for lights should really make the game work much better.

I am pretty impressed by the list of changes proposed. Kudos to the developers for listening to us and adopting some of our suggestions. I dodn't see any mention of moving anarchy back to the start of the turn, which is a bad thing I think.

Deeter

This is what iain said in an earlier post:

"It does not work at the beginning of the turn - it is much better like this. You take away all player control if it is at the beginning and this is not going to change back. Knights become unusable.

The reason you think you prefer it is because there used to be a bug stopping heavy foot from anarchy charging so it did not happen at all."

[batesmotel]

I'm still confused about these double moves. Some units "behind the lines" and with a commander can move twice as fast? Why? Something about reserves?

The double move in the TT rules has two effects. It can allow troops to initially close faster than they otherwise would. This can be especially important for HF based armies. Once the main battle lines have closed, the rule can also allow reserve troops to re-deploy more quickly than they other wise could.

In the TT rules, double moves are limited to either a BG with a commander, or a battle line of BGs which are all contiguous and within the commander's command radius. They must start and remain outside of 6 MU (bow range) and battle line moves are limited to simply advancing or wheeling without formation or individual BG facing changes. All BGs in the battle line move at the speed of the slowest BG in the battle line. The commander must be attached to one of the BGs in the battle line. Given that there are a limited number of commanders avaialble to an army, deciding where to use them for double moves early in the game can be an important decision. Deciding whether I want to move up a skirmisher screen quickly or the main battle line or to speed up the advance of units on one flank can make for a more interesting game.

Chris

[Morbio]

Whoever loses initiaitve moves first but can usually double move the skirmishers very far onto the map effectively slowing the other army down.

How does moving skirmisher very far into the map slow the army down? All the HF (or whatever) need to do is attack them and by doing so you advance into their hex anyway. If there are 2 skirmishers together then you could effectively speed up the enemy by allowing HF to advance 3 hexes!

[TheGrayMouser]

I do wonder how this would work in the PC version though, as commanders are not "attachable" to any unit you want but are main battle units(often extemely limited as well per the list)...

Of course there are no line formations (or formations at all) in the PC game....

I really dont understand the notion that double movement to get reserves to the action should justify the double movement in of itself... this isnt napoleonic warefare with division and corps and cavalry reserves kicking back in the rear in a more dispersed battle field... Warefare in the ancients was much more linear... There were really no battle where you could decide, after the initial deployment that you were going to move any sizable bodies of troops from one flank to another....
if you want your "reserves" to be part of the battle, you really need to plan ahead...

Also, why should a heavy infantry army get to move faster? Is it a balance issue?

That being said I am intrigued by the double movement as an abstaction of "flank speed' marches, march column" movement etc , which could not be accomplished in close proximity to the enemy.

I really am interested in how that key part will be determined in the PC version.... At what point will double moves be halted ? It sounds like in the TT it is the distance of a bow, so 5 hexes.... Lh horse will be able to double time 10 hexes , a third of the map depth..... I am having a hard time seeing this playing out...
I guess will have to wait til July when IF comes out!

[TheGrayMouser]

Whoever loses initiaitve moves first but can usually double move the skirmishers very far onto the map effectively slowing the other army down.

How does moving skirmisher very far into the map slow the army down? All the HF (or whatever) need to do is attack them and by doing so you advance into their hex anyway. If there are 2 skirmishers together then you could effectively speed up the enemy by allowing HF to advance 3 hexes!

I think the effect would be this.... If you start ist you can double time your skirmishers and beeline them to the enemy line... Now the enemy line will be "in close proximity" to your skirmishers, so they WONT be able to double time... Your battle line will still be able to do so and you can mass forces , chose the axis of attack using double time and basically set the tempo of the battle....
Hmm, doesnt seem quite right that the player that LOSES the initiative would get such an advantage

[batesmotel]

...
I really am interested in how that key part will be determined in the PC version.... At what point will double moves be halted ? It sounds like in the TT it is the distance of a bow, so 5 hexes.... Lh horse will be able to double time 10 hexes , a third of the map depth..... I am having a hard time seeing this playing out...
I guess will have to wait til July when IF comes out!

LH would be some what restricted in using a 10 hex move at least in parts of the map where enemy skirmishers are deployed. Since skirmishers can start deployed 9 hexes in, this only leaves 12 hexes in between opposing skirmish lines after deploying. With a requirement to stay more than 5 hexes away from enemy BGs, the LH would only be able to advance 7 hexes as opposed to the usual 5 if they are advancing straight towards the enemy. They could certainly go farther than that if moving laterally or if on a part of the map where there are no opposing skirmishers facing them.

Chris

[keithmartinsmith]

DOUBLE MOVES - We will experiment here with how to get 'double moves' into the game before we add it to the system. At the moment its looking like this (incidentaly consider double moves being moving at the double, not double your movement allowance). Double moves should allow for rapid initial movement to contact and reward keeping reserves deep behind your lines. We have yet to code this but this is the plan at the moment. Its simple, clear to understand and allows for no additional player clicking except for dealing with newly revealed enemy BG's. I am open to suggestions to improvements but they need to remain, simple, clear and easy to understand and to add to the user interface.

1) That a battle group must start and end its move at least 6 hexes from all visible enemy battle groups.
2) If playing with FOG if a unit has moved beyond its normal movement allowance and a new enemy battlegroup within 6 hexes is revealed by the move to that point its move will end there. If a BG has not gone over its normal allowance and a new enemy BG is revealed then the move will pause there and a player may change the remainder of its normal movement allowance (This is in line with another proposed change to allow a player to move a BG in small incriments).
3) All BG's will have 3 MP's added to their movement allowance if double moving or their movement allowance will be doubled, which ever is the lowest figure.
4) A player will not have to select a normal or double move before moving. Hexes in normal range will be highlighted in one colour and hexes that can only be reached by a double move in another.
5) A BG gains no additional benefit in turing in a double move. Turning will be just as in a normal move.

BAGGAGE AND CAMPS - These are effectively the same thing. Where a scenario designer wants to represent mobile baggage, a feature not in FOG TT, then these cannot be Baggage Camps for VP purposes but can and should be selected as poor mobs. The wagon graphics for these are already in the scenario designer.

Keith

[deadtorius]

Thank you Slitherine, those future plans are looking good. A good game is going to get even better

[76mm]

DOUBLE MOVES - ...Double moves should allow for rapid initial movement to contact and reward keeping reserves deep behind your lines.

This still seems gamey and unhistorical to me. As others have pointed out, as I understand it "reserves deep behind your lines" was not a typical feature of warfare in this period. And if double move means "at the double" rather than double movement points, what does it mean in terms of increased MPs? 1.5x or what?

[jamespcrowley]

The roadmap looks excellent - can only add to what is already a superb game. The anarchy change should certainly have an impact.

I'm pleased to see the planned AI improvements. As far as deployment goes, I hope that there will be some randomisation i.e. rather than always three groups with a leader each, perhaps sometimes only one or two groups with variable leader numbers and types and so on.

[Scutarii]

Interesting, i like many of the new features (buy Inmortal fire returns to my mind hehehe) but want add my two cents.

1- as many people say add double move could increase the game speed and now it has a great speed and of course can made cavalry the new panzers and can add to skirmish more unhistorical role as light fixers (well with the evasion level this could be compensate).

2- i dont know how works in TT the flank rule but i want see something that prevent that for example as i suffer in a game my enemy move from his left flank to his left flank ALL his cavalry (6 heavy units unidrilled ... 4 i think) in my own face and cant do nothing because cant move to cut the action (double move can change this but this force me face enemy early and made my light troops less usefull) and cant change my line to adapt to his final move (drilled cant retreat facing enemy).

3- from 2 i want see how drilled units can retreat one hex without changing facing because with light units cover their rear is hard because they could be repulsed or they could be fixed and force to fight in melee vs HF (again the evasion level can change this).

4- limits to shoot units, limit the number of shoots in battle or limit the number of units that can target a single unit but limit their total fire could be interesting.


What can say, some things sounds really good and can help to the game

[CaptainHuge]

The double move on the TT is only available to units with a leader attached either directly of to a battleline the unit is part of. The entire move must begin and end outside of 6 inches (hf move 3 inches on the tt) and can only be a simple advance. It's a great feature when taken together with initiative.

Whoever loses initiaitve moves first but can usually double move the skirmishers very far onto the map effectively slowing the other army down. It's very useful for HF armies to lose initiative in order to gain the first move. This coupled with agression settings for lights should really make the game work much better.

I am pretty impressed by the list of changes proposed. Kudos to the developers for listening to us and adopting some of our suggestions. I dodn't see any mention of moving anarchy back to the start of the turn, which is a bad thing I think.

Deeter

This is what iain said in an earlier post:

"It does not work at the beginning of the turn - it is much better like this. You take away all player control if it is at the beginning and this is not going to change back. Knights become unusable.

The reason you think you prefer it is because there used to be a bug stopping heavy foot from anarchy charging so it did not happen at all."

Whoever wins initiative should have the Choice whether to move first or not. Isn't that a common rule in most table top games?

Thanks Slitherine for giving us this road map. It is great knowing a little about what lies ahead as we make a commitment to buy the product. Is the intention to release the army packs in the same order as the table top books were published?

[keyth]

Is anything going to be done about 'suicide' anarchy charges? e.g. horse against steady pike. I totally understand (and like) anarchy as a measure of unruliness and aggression in an army, leading to a temporary loss of control, but kamikaze horsemen does not feel at all right to me.

[batesmotel]

Is anything going to be done about 'suicide' anarchy charges? e.g. horse against steady pike. I totally understand (and like) anarchy as a measure of unruliness and aggression in an army, leading to a temporary loss of control, but kamikaze horsemen does not feel at all right to me.

The answer to suicide charges is to not put your horsemen in front of the pikes. One of the primary reasons to have the anarchy rules is to allow HF to be able to do something to shock mounted. The POAs on impact put MF/HF at a substantial disadvantage if they charge shock mounted. To counterbalance this and to reflect that HF/MF historically normally did stand to receive shock mounted charges, the anarchy rules are there to make it dangerous for shock mounted to just try to sit and stare down the pikes or other HF/MF.

So this is definitely something that is working right with anarchy.

Chris

[batesmotel]

...
Whoever wins initiative should have the Choice whether to move first or not. Isn't that a common rule in most table top games?

Thanks Slitherine for giving us this road map. It is great knowing a little about what lies ahead as we make a commitment to buy the product. Is the intention to release the army packs in the same order as the table top books were published?

In the TT rules, the winner of the initiative gets to choose the type of terrain where the battle will be fought and also gets to deploy his army after the loser of the initiative does. (The two sides alternate deploying 1/4 of their BGs at a time with the loser going first.) The loser of the initiative therefore gets to move first to balance the winner's advantages.

Initiative on FoG PC is done a bit differently. The terrain choice is weighted in the winner's favor 2 to 1against the loser's choice, so is a lesser advantage than in TT. In FoG PC deployment is essentially blind about the opposing player's deployment so the winner receives no advantage there. Given this maybe the wiiner should have a 1/3 chance of moving first?

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Can someone familiar w the TT comment on the Themed games... I assume that you post a challenge and the one who accepts can only pick an amy in that historical "theme", so no late romans vs Early Carthos?


Also what does this mean??
3) Change: The multi-player system will be amended to only allow official DAG army lists to be used.

Are there "ilegal" lists being used in dag battle??

[deeter]

Themed games aren't that resticted. For example, you could choose an army from any list in RoR or Eternal Fire but not from SoA. Of course, it really depends on who is organising a tournament.

As for 3, there is an unofficial Early Republican Rome list available and more to come. Maybe that's what that's about.

As for the double move thing, on the TT the player with initiative can choose the terrain type for the battle with much more precision than the PC game allows -- a big advantage. This is counter balanced by the loser being able to move first. Also, the armies are deployed in alternating batches with the loser going first.

Deeter