Slitherine

Old_Warrior wrote:Pretty simple solution ...

It's not a simple solution as one doesn't get any choice as to whether the maps one is given will be green or arid. So if one is playing with armies that suit a green map, and one is given two green maps and two arid maps, then one will limited in map choice. Occasionally, one gets maps of all one map type. Not long ago I was playing as the Romans against the Ancient British and all four maps I was given to choose from were arid.

Obviously, it's also not a simple solution as one would have to set up games via a thread in the forum.

Yes, well it beats asking the team to work on something that is not as important as getting the combat routine fixed. Right? I mean come on, now you are whining about something that is probably LOW on the priority for most of us where it concerns game play.

Would you prefer to play with the same combat system or get your choice of AREA where the maps will be located?

I would like to see BETTER maps but I could care less whether it is GREEN or ARID. To me this is a non-issue for the game. Players can just cancel the challenge if they want and try again. Its not a show stopper.

Well, we all have different sensibilities and priorities. For me, the green/arid map issue is my NUMBER 1 gripe with the game - almost a game-breaker.

On the other hand, I have no issues whatsoever with the combat system itself. I think it works well and that the victor in battle is generally the player who played best. My opinion, from playing against the players that loudly complain about the combat system or the element of chance in the game, is that those aren't the reasons they lost the games...

Ok you are saying that Light Cavalry in the OPEN should be able to hold off Heavy Cavalry for FOUR turns so that other units can come up and whack it in the rear? CMON!

Or the old rear attack that many are complaining about where the attacker actually starts in the front arc of the defending unit?

The combat system is flawed. Units go from Steady to Fragmented and there is very little unit difference. For instance I saw a Cavalry unit that was Armored go Fragmented in the initial Impact against similar cavalry. THAT is a problem to me.

In Spain you have Arid terrain. You also get it in FRANCE of all places. I can also site some areas in the UK that are semi-arid. The maps are not the major problem with the game. The combat system is as many of us are tiring of the same "better unit gets beat up by the lousy millions of Medium Infantry which are far more maneuverable." Heavy Infantry should shread Medium infantry in battle. I tire of seeing bow armed MI beating HI that is much better armored than them.

Horse archer armies that have Cavalry type units not being able to properly turn in their turn and move away from a threat and end up getting run down in the enemy turn. Basically you have to set them to Evade and hope that they DO evade in order to turn, move back and then turn to face the enemy (and that has me confused - if they can do it in a reaction move why not in the player's turn?).

I understand your concern but there are bigger fish to fry. And what is interesting is that you did have two Greek armies facing off against each other in Arid terrain. Some of the matchups in the above list are just not correct. Most of the armies in this game could either fight in Green or Arid terrain.

Anyway, peace brother, and last comment on this topic for me.

Old_Warrior wrote:You also get it in FRANCE of all places.

Where exactly? The beach?

Old_Warrior wrote:I can also site some areas in the UK that are semi-arid.

You are joking, I presume. Unless you are speaking in cultural terms, in which case that should have no bearing on the map question.

Old_Warrior wrote:And what is interesting is that you did have two Greek armies facing off against each other in Arid terrain.

Which Greeks are you referring to here? There is only one Greek army I have described as "arid only" (not counting Successors) and that is Kyrenean Greek. You do know where Kyrene was? It was a Greek colony in modern-day Libya so you cannot say arid isn't appropriate.

If you are saying that the Greeks, which I have described as "green or arid" should not use arid maps then that is simply incorrect.

Have a look at the following table from the European Environment Agency, listing the semi-arid regions in the EEA area. If you examine it, you will see that it corresponds with my selections. The page the table is from is titled 'semi-arid areas in the eea area' and it includes lots of scientific analysis. Needless to say, there's no mention of France on the whole page. Or the UK.



(Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/9 ... ge003.html )

Old_Warrior wrote:Some of the matchups in the above list are just not correct.

Well, please cite specific examples. I welcome input to correct any inaccuracies.

Old_Warrior wrote:Most of the armies in this game could either fight in Green or Arid terrain.

That therefore implies that you do indeed think there are some armies that shouldn't fight in green or arid.

As demonstrated, I think that the 'bottom up' approach - that it is down to the user to sort out - would simply not work in practise, as the human error factor is too great.

The 'top down' approach - pre-coded map type allocation along the lines I have suggested - would seem to be the only and most logical way to go about it, and I don't think has really faced any serious challenges in this thread. Not that I don't welcome constructive criticism - actually, I am eager to pin-point any weaknesses or deficiencies in the model, should they exist.

I think that perhaps the best way to implement it would be to set it as an option for the player that sets up the table, in the same way as 'Fog of War' and 'Double Move' are table options now. There could therefore be another tickable option, something like...well, I'm still working on trying to think up a more snappy title than 'authentic environmental maps' but I'm sure I'll get a flash of logical inspiration...or if anyone has any suggestions?

With this option ticked, the green and arid maps would be allocated along authentic historical/geographical lines. If the option is unticked, then the game runs the same way as it does now, with all armies able to fight on both green or arid maps.

Like 'Fog of War' and 'Double Move', these table options are displayed to the challenger so both players know what the options are set to. I suspect there might be other customisable table options in the future version of the game, too.

So with this system in place, if one wanted to play a Wars of the Roses battle, for example, in the desert then one would be able to do so. For those that would like their battlefields to bear some resemblance to the world in which we live (or lived), then they would be satisfied too.

I think you should be Beta testing the new fog and forget the current version for improvements. Honestly what a load of waffle

Turk1964 wrote:Honestly what a load of waffle

I am unsurprised you view it as waffle. You are another one of these players (and there are only two or three) who see the game mechanics as deeply flawed and seek to blame it for all their own shortcomings in the game - a conspiracy theorist who believes that Slitherine have engineered the game to suppress the game's true tactical giants.

Well, we can't all be Napoleon...

Turk1964 wrote:I think you should be Beta testing the new fog and forget the current version for improvements. Honestly what a load of waffle

I would have liked to have tested out the new FoG but could not get it to work on my system. Hoping you guys that are helping out can get in some good feedback.

Honestly, this topic says that I CANNOT play on an arid map with two western European armies. And frankly that says that I do not have the choice. That is one reason why I think that this entire topic is restrictive on those of us that LIKE the arid maps for MOST of their games. Some of us are getting older, our eyes are just not what they used to be and the brighter Arid maps are easier to pick out the text.

That said I hope that this thread idea never sees the light of day in the new FoG. New battle maps? Yes. Force players to have to always play on a darkish green map? Please NOT!

Happy holidays all and be good! Santa wants to drop down your chimney some night with a new FoG module!

Old_Warrior wrote: Honestly, this topic says that I CANNOT play on an arid map with two western European armies. And frankly that says that I do not have the choice.

You must have missed what I wrote a couple of posts ago where I suggested the best way to do it would probably to have it as an option at table set-up, like "Fog of War" and "Double Moves". Then one would have the option of playing the game as it is now or play with geographically authentic maps. Since this satisfies the needs and desires of both parties, I don't see any need for complaining.

At the risk of frying Turk1964's brain (and I suspect it wouldn't take much), I shall continue with the thread.

I have included four maps to facilitate matters (and hopefully perhaps spur some interest and constructive discussion). There's one satellite map, two Köppen climate classification maps and one soil moisture map. The satellite map is probably the most helpful as it most directly informs about terrain colour, but all the maps have their usefulness. I have cropped and resized the relevant maps - links to the original sources can be found at the end of this post.



Fig. 1: Satellite map

One should hopefully be able to see that the colour of the land mass can vary quite considerably, with Europe a green colour and North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia largely a more sandy "arid" colour.

One may also be able to spot that some areas, such as the Iberian Peninsula or Asia Minor show a mixture of green and arid terrain.



Fig. 2: Köppen climate classification map A

This is is the first of two Köppen climate classification maps. The Köppen climate classification is one of the most widely used climate classification systems.

- The red and pink areas represent desert (arid) terrain.
- The green and blue represent green areas (Maritime Temperate climates or Oceanic climates and Continental climates respectively).
- The beige areas, for example in the Iberian Peninsula, Asia Minor and central Asia, represent cold semi-arid areas.
- The yellow and khaki (e.g. in Portugal) represent Dry-summer subtropical or Mediterranean climates.



Fig. 3: Köppen climate classification map B

Another Köppen climate classification map. The yellow and beige areas are arid, the dark green and purple areas represent green climate and the light green represent warm temperate hot/dry summer areas.



Fig. 4: Soil moisture map

This map shows soil moisture and echoes the other maps. The keen of eye will notice, however, that the drier areas of central Asia expand further North than the climate maps would suggest. Wikipedia explains this thus: "much of central Asia, northwestern China, and southern Mongolia have a thermal regime similar to that of the Dfa climate type, but these regions receive so little precipitation that they are more often classified as steppes (BSk) or deserts (BWk)."

Map links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppe ... sification
http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/present.htm
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrc ... 2p2_054017

I am happy to review and redesignate the armies with the additional information - for example, ancient Judaea could perhaps be green or arid rather than arid.

If anyone wishes to offer constructive discussion then they are welcome to do so.

Broadly speaking I don't care about the arid / green map issue. However, if this is important to people, then you really need to use a map based around the time of the Romans. I believe North Africa was much more verdant and the desert hadn't moved so far north. These grasslands and forests were where the North African elephants, smaller versions of the African elephant, that Hannibal used came from.

Morbio wrote:Broadly speaking I don't care about the arid / green map issue. However, if this is important to people, then you really need to use a map based around the time of the Romans. I believe North Africa was much more verdant and the desert hadn't moved so far north. These grasslands and forests were where the North African elephants, smaller versions of the African elephant, that Hannibal used came from.

Thanks for your constructive input.

The North-West African Mediterranean coastline is designated as semi-arid and Mediterranean Climate type in the Koppen climate classification system. So, while they are more arid than green, I wouldn't be averse to making the Carthaginian in Africa armies as green or arid armies (similar to the Judaean armies). I'm going to review the armies with the use of the climate maps so they may see a couple of changes.

While I appreciate that some or many players are indifferent to their maps, I know I am not alone in wanting historical armies to match with authentic maps, despite the lack of support in this thread. I've occasionally discussed it in-game with other players and some competitive play rules stipulate map types for different armies along authentic lines.

For anyone interested in changes in maps, you should consider trying the open beta of the new version and provide on the maps used with the new version of FoG while it is still in development.

Chris

batesmotel wrote: you should consider trying the open beta of the new version and provide on the maps used with the new version of FoG while it is still in development.

Could you elaborate on this? In what ways are the maps in the open beta different from the current game? And I thought the focus of the current game development was on re-creating the game in Unity code, and only after this would work begin on an enhanced FoG 2.0?

As a mod, you can move this thread to the Beta forum if you like, as be there will be further infusions of scientific analysis still to come, which may prove a bit too niche or dry for the casual FoG player.