The Update or New FoG Can Only Come All Too Soon ...

[batesmotel]

The current behavior of rear rank MF and LF bow is based on the TT rules for the most part. In the TT rules, for a spear POA to apply there must be at least two ranks of spearmen fighting. But inthe mixed units of spearmen and bowmen, there is normally one rank of spearmen and one rank of bowmen so not enough for the spear POA to apply. Some units like the Byzantines are large enough that the unit can deploy in more than two ranks and have two full ranks of spearmen but this is an exception to the normal formation. LF archers, on theother hand, are normally a third rank behind two ranks of HF with spears or other weapons so there are sufficient spearmen to use a spear POA if it applies. Basically the mixed spear and MF bow battlegroups are really archers who fight better than normal archers (since the spear still cancels the POA for enemy lances and swords) especially against enemy mounted since the mounted POA against MF also does not apply.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Should be that they are MORE to buy, they do NOT forfeit their Spear advantage. That is like saying because a Tiger bn. had infantry with it that it no longer gets the 88mm penetration power.

Bottom line: if the unit HAS the weapon in the FRONT rank that that is what it uses in IMPACT. The rear rank should not penalize a unit but it should cost MORE.

I personally dislike using the combo units in the game. The Byzantines for instance get Disrupted, Fragmented and Routed in a matter of a couple of turns. Contrast that with a player that buys a cheap bow unit to fire BETWEEN his own units but never exposes them. Folks - what is the difference?

So just make the cost for combined units the same as the Spear unit PLUS the cheap bow unit. That is how I would do it.

Both MF and LF supported bow need to be reviewed. I think the lack of spear PoA for MF bow makes them rather impractical and that would probably be the same if that were also done to LF bow.

However, if neither LF or MF supporting bow have a PoA spear disadvantage and they both cost 1 point then things are unequal as MF supporting bow is more effective and does more damage than LF bow. At the same time, giving a unit a proper Bow, bow* or crossbow also costs 1 point.

I have yet to see a satisfactory solution that addresses both MF and LF supporting bow. Perhaps one solution would be to just have a single type of supporting bow for foot. There are some FoG players that know the rules in intricate detail and so it would be useful if they could set their minds to such issues and offer more possible practical solutions.

Youd be giving up interesting and historical unit combos (regardless of how EFFECTIVE they were) if you lumped the two together

Troops with spears and medium foot bow support are supposed to represent bowman that have a thin screen of "protector" troops, ie spears. They don't have the depth in spear ranks to help out too much in melee or impact and thus no spear POA ( they still cancel sword and lancer POAS if steady, so it not that bad of a unit. Think of them as primarily missle units that can last a little longer out in the open than pure missle troops. They certainly are more defensive type troops

[the_iron_duke]

Troops with spears and medium foot bow support are supposed to represent bowman that have a thin screen of "protector" troops, ie spears. They don't have the depth in spear ranks to help out too much in melee or impact and thus no spear POA ( they still cancel sword and lancer POAS if steady, so it not that bad of a unit. Think of them as primarily missle units that can last a little longer out in the open than pure missle troops. They certainly are more defensive type troops

If that's the case, then they should amend the graphics for these units as a drilled HF with supporting MF bow unit has one bowman depicted and five spearmen - probably better to have whole rear rank shown as bowmen so it's clear they aren't as good for close combat.

Also, does that mean you think the current status of a supporting MF bow is correct: worth 1 point with a loss of spear PoA? If so, what would you do to LF supporting bow? Make them keep their spear PoA and cost 1 point or lose it and it being cost-free?

[TheGrayMouser]

Troops with spears and medium foot bow support are supposed to represent bowman that have a thin screen of "protector" troops, ie spears. They don't have the depth in spear ranks to help out too much in melee or impact and thus no spear POA ( they still cancel sword and lancer POAS if steady, so it not that bad of a unit. Think of them as primarily missle units that can last a little longer out in the open than pure missle troops. They certainly are more defensive type troops

If that's the case, then they should amend the graphics for these units as a drilled HF with supporting MF bow unit has one bowman depicted and five spearmen - probably better to have whole rear rank shown as bowmen so it's clear they aren't as good for close combat.

Also, does that mean you think the current status of a supporting MF bow is correct: worth 1 point with a loss of spear PoA? If so, what would you do to LF supporting bow? Make them keep their spear PoA and cost 1 point or lose it and it being cost-free?

Which lists? The ones Im familiar with have 2 or 3 crossbows / bows in the rear ranks... Check out the Papal list as an example. HF will light foot support generally have a single bow unit in the rear...

As for points, hmmm . Thinking about it, IMHO HF or medium foot with MEDIUM support should maybe cost a point less. Id rather have LF support be more limited in the problem lists rather than cross the board increasing the costs...
Actually, thinking about it more HF or MEdium foot with OFF/DEF SPEARS should cost a point less than current when they have medium bows. Heavy Weapons w medium bows should cost a point more ie remain the same.
This is because Heavy weapons don't lose anything from having rear rank medium bows AND get the xtra 2 dice when charged and can shoot... (the Danes Swedes have these troop types , and I believe a butt load of Asian lists, that is we ever get Rising Dragon, or whatever that expansion is called) I don't believe there are any official BG's that feature impact foot or light spears with med foot bows, if they do exist they should cost 2 pts more!

[the_iron_duke]

Which lists? The ones Im familiar with have 2 or 3 crossbows / bows in the rear ranks... Check out the Papal list as an example. HF will light foot support generally have a single bow unit in the rear...

As for points, hmmm . Thinking about it, IMHO HF or medium foot with MEDIUM support should maybe cost a point less. Id rather have LF support be more limited in the problem lists rather than cross the board increasing the costs...
Actually, thinking about it more HF or MEdium foot with OFF/DEF SPEARS should cost a point less than current when they have medium bows. Heavy Weapons w medium bows should cost a point more ie remain the same.
This is because Heavy weapons don't lose anything from having rear rank medium bows AND get the xtra 2 dice when charged and can shoot... (the Danes Swedes have these troop types , and I believe a butt load of Asian lists, that is we ever get Rising Dragon, or whatever that expansion is called) I don't believe there are any official BG's that feature impact foot or light spears with med foot bows, if they do exist they should cost 2 pts more!

Assyrian Foot, Persian Guard Infantry and Ordonnance Burgundian Mixed Troops are examples of supporting MF Bow units depicted with a single bowman and five spearmen, although you're right that the Papal States ones are depicted with two differing ranks.

I think I might agree that Off/Def spear with supporting MF Bow units should cost a point less (making them free), while those unaffected by the lack of spear PoA should cost 1 point. Units with supporting LF Bow and no spears, like the Dailami, should cost 1 point.

Also, do light spear lose their spear PoA or is it only Off/Def spear?

[TheGrayMouser]

Which lists? The ones Im familiar with have 2 or 3 crossbows / bows in the rear ranks... Check out the Papal list as an example. HF will light foot support generally have a single bow unit in the rear...

As for points, hmmm . Thinking about it, IMHO HF or medium foot with MEDIUM support should maybe cost a point less. Id rather have LF support be more limited in the problem lists rather than cross the board increasing the costs...
Actually, thinking about it more HF or MEdium foot with OFF/DEF SPEARS should cost a point less than current when they have medium bows. Heavy Weapons w medium bows should cost a point more ie remain the same.
This is because Heavy weapons don't lose anything from having rear rank medium bows AND get the xtra 2 dice when charged and can shoot... (the Danes Swedes have these troop types , and I believe a butt load of Asian lists, that is we ever get Rising Dragon, or whatever that expansion is called) I don't believe there are any official BG's that feature impact foot or light spears with med foot bows, if they do exist they should cost 2 pts more!

Assyrian Foot, Persian Guard Infantry and Ordonnance Burgundian Mixed Troops are examples of supporting MF Bow units depicted with a single bowman and five spearmen, although you're right that the Papal States ones are depicted with two differing ranks.

I think I might agree that Off/Def spear with supporting MF Bow units should cost a point less (making them free), while those unaffected by the lack of spear PoA should cost 1 point. Units with supporting LF Bow and no spears, like the Dailami, should cost 1 point.

Also, do light spear lose their spear PoA or is it only Off/Def spear?

Only offensive and def spears as they are considered to be formations that require depth in ranks to have full effect. Lights spears can represent anything from short stabbing spear troops ie Roman Aux to tribal Hillman with javelins and maybe a shorter spear for close in work.

[alzado_77]

ha ha , Daylamis, no doudt the reason why players want 1 xtr point for LF bow...

I can find so little about these peoples on the internet, I do wonder how they were classified to be armoured impact foot in the lists

Truly the only useful info I can find is this: (from a tract from Ian Heath)
"The Daylamis were a rough mountain people of the Caspian region. During this period they served as mercenaries with the Sassanids, Samanids, Buyids (themselves a Daylami dynasty), Fatimids, Saftarids and Ghaznavids, and later with the Seljuks until the end of the 12th century.
They fought mainly as infantry though they used mules or camels for transport and the wealthiest rode horses. Their cavalry were supplied chiefly by Turkish mercenaries and ghulams.
Their standard arms consisted of sword, brightly painted shield and zupin, the latter a short javelin used for thrusting or throwing"

This really sounds more like protected light spear sword foot vs armoured impact!

I've done quite a lot of research on Persian armies for my own scenarios, from the Alexandrian to the late Sassanid period. A lot of good quality infantry came out of the Caucasus region in different periods - Hyrcanians, Hiberians and later the Dailami. From my own research, there's no evidence of armour, and they are praised for being able to fight in loose order like LF, and stand in line like MF/HF. So in my Persian/Parthian/Sassanid armies I tend to portray them as either Sup/Prot/MF with LS and Javs, or impact foot. I don't think the latter is unreasonable as there are some accounts that attest the impact of the initial engagement.

[ichirou989]

Meanwhile, back to the OP...

It would seem then that according to this:

The existing code base for FoG V1 is probably unmaintainable without the original author from Hexwar. While the initial idea was to have someone else takeover maintaining the code, it was eventually decided that developing a new, more maintainable code base was the right direction to take going forward. The initial release will be a game with roughly equivalent functionality and play as the current version and this is what will be released as a free upgrade. This will allow for the release of further army packs such as Wolves form the Sea and Oath of Fealty. In addition the new code base will allow for further improvements and enhancements to the basic game and I expect that will be sold as a new release/version.

Chris

things are still moving along, rather than being shelved which is good news. It is a shame the way things worked out with the original code, and I totally agree that you really do require easier to maintain code if you plan to continue on with the series. Not only from the standpoint of new material, but also to improve what is already in place. Plus, it will as you say, eventually lead toward a superior Fields of Glory 2 release sometime in the future. And really, I'm fine with you just getting things going with the new code at the level we were at with the last release, since at that point it will just be a matter of patching and expanding. Plus, it was the originally stated intent by cothyso to just get the game to that state initially.

As for how long it's taking, well, considering they are having to recreate the game pretty much from scratch, I have a feeling that at least 2 years would be required, i.e. March 2014. So I think we still have a bit of a wait yet, though an updated estimate would be nice, or at least how far along the project is at this point.

[Old_Warrior]

"As for how long it's taking, well, considering they are having to recreate the game pretty much from scratch, I have a feeling that at least 2 years would be required, i.e. March 2014. So I think we still have a bit of a wait yet, though an updated estimate would be nice, or at least how far along the project is at this point."

Which means sometime in 2016!!!

Seeing how things slip these days in software design. BIG

[TheGrayMouser]

"As for how long it's taking, well, considering they are having to recreate the game pretty much from scratch, I have a feeling that at least 2 years would be required, i.e. March 2014. So I think we still have a bit of a wait yet, though an updated estimate would be nice, or at least how far along the project is at this point."

Which means sometime in 2016!!!

Seeing how things slip these days in software design. BIG

Good grief I hope not, especially as I hope the new engine will give birth to FOG Ren ( and then FOG Nap)!

[oldbear1962]

As long as it's not as big a catastrophe as Rome 2 Total War... still, a bit more communication really would not go amiss.

[Morbio]

As long as it's not as big a catastrophe as Rome 2 Total War... still, a bit more communication really would not go amiss.

Oh I was thinking of buying Rome II - What's wrong with it?

[oldbear1962]

As long as it's not as big a catastrophe as Rome 2 Total War... still, a bit more communication really would not go amiss.

Oh I was thinking of buying Rome II - What's wrong with it?

It's about 60% finished. Loads of stuff taken out apparently and simplified prior to porting onto consoles. http://forums.totalwar.com/forumdisplay ... ar-Rome-II tells you all you need to know.

[gavril]

Three anxious FoG players manage to make contact with God.

The first player asks: "When will Wolves From The Sea be released for FoG Digital?"
God replies: "In 2018."
"I'll be dead by then," the first player moans.

Then the second players asks: "When will Swifter Than Eagles be available for FoG Digital?"
God replies: "In 2025."
"I'll be dead by then," the second player complains.

Finally, the third players speaks up: "When will Slitherine produce a decent AI for FoG Digital?"
"I'll be dead by then," replies God...

Boom Boom! The old ones are the old ones...

[Brigz]

The U.S. Senate and House finally passed a budget at the last minute. Which reminds me... How's that rewrite of digital FoG coming along?

[oldbear1962]

Clearly FoG is in need of some Obamacare.

[cothyso]

well, you are funny but who of you guys wanna bet with me you'll have at least a FoG(U) beta in a finished state before the end of this year?

any takers? because I could definitely use some more gold

PS: a new beta version will be out any day by now, and in case you need a reminder, the beta is open by more than a couple of months..

[stockwellpete]

When do you think it will be in the shops (with Wolves From the Seas), Dan?

[Brigz]

Thanks for the update Dan. I don't think I'll take you up on that bet. You sound a bit too confident. Keep up the good work and I hope you win the bet against any takers if there are any.
Keep us posted.

[cothyso]

When do you think it will be in the shops (with Wolves From the Seas), Dan?

well, the frank answer is "it depends" having the game finished is not the same thing with having it in stores. it also requires a lot of preparation (packaging, marketing, etc) and it would require the eventual approval of various 3rd parties (in case you haven't know it until now, we're making FoG(U) for Windows, OSX, iOS and Android - so we'll need Apple's approval for the iOS version).

we'll definitely have the game ready until before the end of this year (I would say even much earlier, but I won't say more), so you'll have a fully working Windows open beta game to play with (the game is already in open beta, and a new version will be available any day by now), until the proper launch versions will be available in their respective stores.

also, the game will have almost full cross-platform multiplayer (the memory restrictions being the only ones which might prevent tablet iOS and Android versions access huge SP/MP games). the tablet versions won't have access to the editor neither (reasons being obvious).