Slitherine

A great improvement!

Scenario Editor

Scutarii wrote:And dont forget walls!!! with medieval armies and roman legions cant made some defensive works like castles or camps...

If we are to have walls and/or defensive works in the scenario editor, we could do with a 'stay in place' right button option when placing units so the AI knows they are intended to defend and not attack.

Is better add an atribute for units called "garrison", dont have pursuit feature when they defeat an enemy unit, change this in general need a different way for regular units whit orders like the evasion feature for L units but with a random value where commander has a great impact, i dont like prevent all pursuit situations i prefer see then based on what do you do with commander units

Stay in place is my idea for the non garrison units, an order that dont are 100% succesfull (quality, unit type, commander level and range to it... influence it) for garrison why dont create a garrison unit type??? you can define if is a static unit, if it have different break point (you dont need kill 45% in a regular unit to win when assault a castle, you need a breach) or much better, how many % need to loose to be kicked from the walls.

But i think that game need other works previous to center on siege warfare some of these can be used in siege of course.


Talking about the new map feature... well, i allways see the ugly face in the changes, i think that think the worst is a good way to be glad with the final result when isnt the apocalipsis that you think

Since HF armies tend to lose initiative, is there any mechanism being considered so they don't always wind up fighting in steep hills / forest? Or perhaps to let both sides see what the map is before selecting your troops from the list?

Cheers and excited aboth the change but nevous that it will make horde armies even more invincible...

Tom

I'm not sure how this new mechanism will work though I can imagine how it will negatively impact matches if not wisely implemented. At a basic level the winner of initiative should be considered the attacker and as such chooses the map but doesn't deploy. Then it shifts to the loser (considered defender) who before deploying selects which side they would like to defend from and then deploys. After that the winner deploys and moves first. In such an approach it will help stop someone picking a fortress europa map for them to defend on. Some maps scream draw unless the opponent has the right troop mix. If the winner opts for a map with a fantastic side then they know their opponent will choose that side to deny them. Maybe this will help maintain a series of playable battlefields.

Cheers,

Steve

Steve's comments should be carefully considered. Perhaps, the maps could all be square. Then the winner of initiative could choose the map and opponent could choose any of the four sides and deploys. This would simulate the defender picking his ground and the attacker choosing the approach. In addition, the winner of initiative could be given the choice to defer to opponent, who would then be obligated to choose ground, thus reversing the process.

This has a sort of mini-campaign feel to it. It could be expanded by showing all four maps as contiguous, but divided by dotted lines. More to come on this subject.

pantherboy wrote:I'm not sure how this new mechanism will work though I can imagine how it will negatively impact matches if not wisely implemented. At a basic level the winner of initiative should be considered the attacker and as such chooses the map but doesn't deploy. Then it shifts to the loser (considered defender) who before deploying selects which side they would like to defend from and then deploys. After that the winner deploys and moves first. In such an approach it will help stop someone picking a fortress europa map for them to defend on. Some maps scream draw unless the opponent has the right troop mix. If the winner opts for a map with a fantastic side then they know their opponent will choose that side to deny them. Maybe this will help maintain a series of playable battlefields.

Cheers,

Steve

Some great points here. I hope this idea can be included.

It's a bit like when you are teaching your kids to cut a cake for themselves and their siblings. In order to stop them cutting a huge piece for themselves we have a rule. If you cut, you get last choice. It's amazing how fairly they cut the cake after that!

Agreed about choice of maps and how a hf army could find itself fighting in difficult terrain, for example if it has lost initiative.

Also allowing the defender to choose which side to deploy. Don't think the idea of giving defender all sides to choose from is a good one. In many games I have played using a mounted army. It is sometimes tough enough to try and outflank an opposing force using normal format so defender can choose either long side of map.

Winning initiative in TT games is very important especially when using specific armies, ie MF or mounted.

Overall it does sound like an improvement to the game and to what I think is the major "grumble" of many a player. "This a very open map?" and we both chose very open.

BUT

An army that has advantageous terrain within it's deployment and or first march moves will normally win the game. We may end up seeing more draws or much longer games.

A total improvement can only be made when the digital version can replicate (as close as possible) the TT version.

I think this is worthy of a much longer discussion once we see what is in the LT release.

Although fine for friendly games, where you can amicably agree to restart, terrain setup will be critical for competitive ones. There is the risk of killing the patient with the cure for the current system.

I am sure we can iterate to a great way to set up terrain for FOG PC that plays to PC strengths, not replicating the TT system. PC has advantages (e.g. you are not limited by the terrain pieces you happened to bring) and TT has advantages (e.g. you can have many quick tos and fros between players).

Has any other PC game cracked this issue, or are we carving new ground here?

Probably going over new ground. Most all pc games thinks it takes to long to come up with some kind of balanced terrain setup feature because it will add 2 or 3 turns of back and forth before you can start playing. I think that is part of the story. The rest is how much time and money on the technical side it will require.

I hope this is implemented well. Time will tell.

Anything that gets us away from maps like this (this is the map generated for an "Open" battle in the Companions Cup) has got to be good!... I created a lot of Open battles to get this retrospective screenshot and there are some good Open maps, but I did see another map that was even worse than this! It had a lake surrounded by concentric circles of steep hills and then hills plus some marsh etc in the middle of the map - why any army would choose ot fight on it is a mystery!

Oh Morbio stop moaning ...

The bottom right hand corner is open!

Indeed it is

Our Companions Cup game is most interesting with this layout. At present both pike armies are moving around the central trees and marshes. Claymore sent his into the trees to start with, but has now withdrawn them and started moving round the trees. It's about 5 turns in and still about 4 or more turns before any non-skirmisher foot will contact!

Ahh bummer , LT's release appears to be pushed back to March....