Current concerns about FOG2

[lapdog666]

LOL a thread of concerns about a game which has not yet been released.

Personally I'm delighted with what looks to be a great replacement for the much loved original version of FOG. Its worth recalling that many significant features of that took time to be added after its initial release. One continuing weakness was its very poor AI - which obliged so many of us to revert early to its classic multiplayer mode whatever our then preferences about single player and multiplayer games. Frankly there seems to be a wealth of choice in FOG 2 with the revised campaign system being added to supplement the epic and custom battle options plus the likelihood of additional user and mod inspired scenarios. Great stuff and 12 October is nearly here!

Plus one!
This thread does seem a bit surreal to me... Why not wait till the game is released (any day now) and see what it's like in practice?
RBS and his team have been brilliant IMHO at engaging with the gaming community and implementing suggestions where appropriate.
Chill out guys!

Cheers,
Bombax.

what we see now, regarding terrain/representation of units is how it ll be on release, theres really nothing to wait for.
graphics perhaps, but i seriously doubt any major changes, or even changes to what i mentioned will take place

[devoncop]

Indeed.

[JaM2013]

i dont share this sentiment, as youtube gameplay previews (at least most of them) are quite good indicator how game plays. I don't mean my posts as critique, but as feedback to authors, so they know about these things up front and get this info sooner. I fully understand no game can be released in perfect state, and it is normal to add new things later as part of DLCs or gameplay updates (which i would have no problem paying for as a gamer). And personally, i think youtube gameplay like the one made by MasterofRoflness are a lot more harmful than any critique on this forum, as he just spreads the wrong message about the game without having some decency at least understanding base principles of turn based games..

[Searry]

I personally think this game is already highly superior without even having played the game. The only thing I'm wishing for is... BLOOD! I want to see blood on the battlefield, sell it as DLC if you want to keep the age rating.

[lapdog666]

I personally think this game is already highly superior without even having played the game. The only thing I'm wishing for is... BLOOD! I want to see blood on the battlefield, sell it as DLC if you want to keep the age rating.

i am also confident it ll be a very good game , 8 or 9 out of 10, but i just want it to be the best it can. fog of war and authentic representation of units for example and polished graphics (fine details) is something that if it can be improved, it should- if its grants us benefits/superior game

[Igorputski]

LOL a thread of concerns about a game which has not yet been released.

Personally I'm delighted with what looks to be a great replacement for the much loved original version of FOG. Its worth recalling that many significant features of that took time to be added after its initial release. One continuing weakness was its very poor AI - which obliged so many of us to revert early to its classic multiplayer mode whatever our then preferences about single player and multiplayer games. Frankly there seems to be a wealth of choice in FOG 2 with the revised campaign system being added to supplement the epic and custom battle options plus the likelihood of additional user and mod inspired scenarios. Great stuff and 12 October is nearly here!

Plus one!
This thread does seem a bit surreal to me... Why not wait till the game is released (any day now) and see what it's like in practice?
RBS and his team have been brilliant IMHO at engaging with the gaming community and implementing suggestions where appropriate.
Chill out guys!

Cheers,
Bombax.

Lol Bomby you always have a few historical nuts who think every little detail should be in a game. I personally don't care if they deploy in 3 ranks or 6 ranks. It's a game not a history lesson. My only concern is that the AI plays a decent challenging game. History is my last concern other than the time frame of it. Long as they fight with swords and spears an arrows and rocks and not rifles and tanks or artillery I'll be a happy camper.

[JaM2013]

you cannot call something historical battle if deployment in that battle is nothing like in actual battle it is about... is it really that hard to grasp? I had to listen to this same argument when i sent feedback to CA while working on R2TW and we all know what a mess they made because they decided to make the game simpler for those who "dont want to be bothered with history" in historical themed game...

[Igorputski]

You need to read what CA said about the socalled "historical" part of the game. When it comes to gameplay "historical" is tossed out the window because it's a "GAME" BOZ! Everyone doesn't care about history like the nuts do (that's why Rome I sold so many copies and brought a new generation to wargaming). ROME I is a great "game" regardless of stupid history details and that's what CA said they would do.

Lastly no game can come close to historical because there's no blood and guts and pain. It's all make believe and some take it too far to make believe it should be 100% historical when it never can.

Also, tell me how it can be historical in the Caesar campaigns when the maps are randomly generated and the units can be picked by the player not by Caesar? Yeah boy thas really historical. lol

The best "any" game can be is a "close" representation of history. Key word "close" but no way accurate. Numbers don't represent how a man felt in the 3rd row of a legion. Stats can't exactly portray their morale or thoughts. You're playing a "game" BASED on something that happened in history, never gonna be historical by a long shot.

So the historical nuts need to get off their high horses and learn what a game is vs what history is. Anyone can paint a pretty lil graphic and give it some numbers for attack and defense and morale, but, that certainly doesn't make it "historical" lol

That's why they are called "GAMES"; go back to school and learn the definition of game.

[76mm]

So the historical nuts need to get off their high horses and learn what a game is vs what history is.

That's why they are called "GAMES"; go back to school and learn the definition of game.

Thanks for your trite and patronizing explanation of what games are all about, in your not-so-humble opinion. So I guess you're OK with orc phalanxes and dragon squadrons in FOG2? After all, it's just a game.

Some of us look for other things in a "game"...of course no game or simulation can be considered "realistic" but the best of them can create a real sense of immersion--not by including everything necessary for it to be "realistic", but by excluding major issues which are patently "unrealistic" (such as, ahem, lack of FoW). And some of us expect more from this developer, and from Slitherine, than the pablum put out by the major game companies--that's exactly why we're here.

I am looking forward to this game very much, and it is definitely a very unusual first-day buy for me, but that doesn't mean that the game cannot be improved, even from what we've seen thus far, prior to release.

[Igorputski]

[quote]So I guess you're OK with orc phalanxes and dragon squadrons in FOG2? After all, it's just a game.[/quote[

All that would be needed there is some paint much like CA did with WARHAMMER. They just took the old units and reskinned them and called them orcs and other things in the GAME of WARHAMMER.

These things are nothing but x's and o's. They are not infantry or archers or cavalry they are just some numerical representation of what the developer thinks is a close representation. There's no reality or historical to them. They are just numbers with some pretty pictures painted over them. Without your make believe they would have no life at all. You "pretend" they are units from ancient history and the values given are "historical" lol.

It's like oh look that unit has a numerical number of 8 it must be an elephant, lol Well, it's painted like an elephant so historically it must be an elephant. lol

Now, if you want to "pretend" that silly stuff by all means go ahead. But, don't give us that malarky about it needs to be more "historical" and "realistic" and this and that happened cause so n so said so 2000 years ago. lol

I don't have a problem with how the GAME is presented; just with historical nuts about it.

Of course this is "my" opinion and I have a right to it. )

[JaM2013]

I repeat. If something is called "Battle of Bagradas" then its obviously trying to show player that battle.. therefore i would assume, deployment would be similar to the deployment used in that battle.. yet current one, with 6 lines is far from it and it doesn't make sense. I have no problem if they do something like that in "Custom battle", even though, i would still complain if they placed Romans in such formation, because they never used it and from tactical point of view, its a complete waste of men, with enemy practically invited to outflank them..

[lapdog666]

So the historical nuts need to get off their high horses and learn what a game is vs what history is.

That's why they are called "GAMES"; go back to school and learn the definition of game.

Thanks for your trite and patronizing explanation of what games are all about, in your not-so-humble opinion. So I guess you're OK with orc phalanxes and dragon squadrons in FOG2? After all, it's just a game.

Some of us look for other things in a "game"...of course no game or simulation can be considered "realistic" but the best of them can create a real sense of immersion--not by including everything necessary for it to be "realistic", but by excluding major issues which are patently "unrealistic" (such as, ahem, lack of FoW). And some of us expect more from this developer, and from Slitherine, than the pablum put out by the major game companies--that's exactly why we're here.

I am looking forward to this game very much, and it is definitely a very unusual first-day buy for me, but that doesn't mean that the game cannot be improved, even from what we've seen thus far, prior to release.

couldnt have said it better myself. our goal is to get rid of unnecessary Arcade elements or lazy decisions. while we know its not possible to have real life engine , we can at least fix what we can, if the devs want to spend more resources to improve the game ofc

[Latro]

never mind...

I'll be civil.

[JaM2013]

i had very similar discussion with Rome 2 about to being released. That time, i was commenting on Let's Play videos CA posted, where there was just obvious game is practically a huge mess because of unit blobbing.. i tried to explain why its bad to allow one unit to walk through another, just to be discouraged by people like you Igorputski, saying its a game not simulator.. And guess what, it was just ignored, CA never addressed that mess, because only "historical nuts" complained, while ordinary players worshiped CA because of nice graphic and one-on-one combat animations(which are ridiculous for formation fighting).. If you look at those games today, they are still the same mess, instead of battles you end up having all units inside one huge blob they call battle, which sometimes even kills the CPU and game becomes unresponsive with 1frame per second... to this day, Rome 2 Total War is given as example of a botched game that was never fixed..practically the worst game of the series..(much worse than Empire) just because they decided to throw their long time fan-base into trash-bin for more casual players...

[76mm]

These things are nothing but x's and o's. They are not infantry or archers or cavalry they are just some numerical representation of what the developer thinks is a close representation. There's no reality or historical to them. They are just numbers with some pretty pictures painted over them. Without your make believe they would have no life at all. You "pretend" they are units from ancient history and the values given are "historical" lol.

Whoa, more insights--you mean those aren't real little elephants running around in my computer? Next thing you'll tell me is that the spaceships in the Star Wars movies are just plastic models or computer generated rather than real space ships, yeah right...

[zakblood]

all forum posts are monitored, and any un civil replies will and have been past onto admin for them to decide if any need or any more moderating.

please be civil everyone, while everyone is entitled to there own opinions, so are others to theirs as well, no one direction is more right than another.

[Gomoto]

My only current concern is, I am not able to play it already today. Lookin forward to the release

[rbodleyscott]

Personally, my main concern with FoG2 is in ability to see through units.. in FoG units blocked visibility, so you could only guess what enemy is doing.. here, you can easily see everything, so there is no surprises - in FoG2 there is no chance for player to fall into trap like the one done at Cannae, or Leuctra, Ilippa and many others.. you immediately spot that enemy has double depth against your flank and you would adjust immediately.. i just hope developer will implement this back, because this is way too important feature that was making FoG1 stand out from other similar games...

i definatelly agree with the fog of war/ hiding of units argument. i wonder what arguments are devs offering for not having this implemented , as in why is it better not to have it than to have it

Mainly because ambushing from behind other troops (without any concealing terrain) was not (contrary to what has been said) a "thing".

I cite as evidence the "Stratagemata" of Julius Frontinus, a Roman military engineer who wrote in the late 1st century AD. He has trawled through all of the histories available to a Roman of the 1st century AD, and listed all the stratagems mentioned in those histories since the 5th century BC. His work was intended as a handbook for Roman generals.

In it, although there are numerous descriptions of ambushes, there is no mention of ambushing from behind other troops, only from concealing terrain.

I prefer to believe Frontinus over the speculations of modern historians.

It is pretty easy to see why it wasn't a viable proposition. Completely flat terrain is vanishingly rare in the real world, particularly around the Mediterranean. A general would only need a slight rise in the ground to see over the enemy front line. And the opposing armies often camped on hills on either side of the battlefield. The fact that battles were usually fought on relatively open terrain just made it easier to see the enemy rear lines.

And if you don't believe a real Roman officer, try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgywD3XJaWU

Yes, the slaves are on a rise, but that would be normal in most battles on at least part of each army's starting positions, and is included in the "flat" terrain if it isn't steep enough to give a significant combat advantage.

[devoncop]

Personally, my main concern with FoG2 is in ability to see through units.. in FoG units blocked visibility, so you could only guess what enemy is doing.. here, you can easily see everything, so there is no surprises - in FoG2 there is no chance for player to fall into trap like the one done at Cannae, or Leuctra, Ilippa and many others.. you immediately spot that enemy has double depth against your flank and you would adjust immediately.. i just hope developer will implement this back, because this is way too important feature that was making FoG1 stand out from other similar games...

i definatelly agree with the fog of war/ hiding of units argument. i wonder what arguments are devs offering for not having this implemented , as in why is it better not to have it than to have it

Mainly because ambushing from behind other troops (without any concealing terrain) was not (contrary to what has been said) a "thing".

I cite as evidence the "Stratagemata" of Julius Frontinus, a Roman military engineer who wrote in the late 1st century AD. He has trawled through all of the histories available to a Roman of the 1st century AD, and listed all the stratagems mentioned in those histories since the 5th century BC. His work was intended as a handbook for Roman generals.

In it, although there are numerous descriptions of ambushes, there is no mention of ambushing from behind other troops, only from concealing terrain.

I prefer to believe Frontinus over the speculations of modern historians.

It is pretty easy to see why it wasn't a viable proposition. Completely flat terrain is vanishingly rare in the real world, particularly around the Mediterranean. A general would only need a slight rise in the ground to see over the enemy front line. And the opposing armies often camped on hills on either side of the battlefield. The fact that battles were usually fought on relatively open terrain just made it easier to see the enemy rear lines.

And if you don't believe a real Roman officer, try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgywD3XJaWU

........And THAT reply is why Mr Bodleyscott is so successful as a game designer.........he understands primary sources....

[JaM2013]

maybe i have used wrong word, but being able to see entire battlefield from bird perspective was not a thing back then either.. My point is more about the fact, that for example at Leuctra, if Spartan King knew Thebans massed 50rank strong force against his royal guard standing in 4 ranks, he would not offer battle but would adjust his deployment accordingly..

Similarly, at Ilippa, if Hastrubal and Mago knew immediately that Roman Legions are not where they were deployed for past week, he would do something about it, instead of going into battle.. But there are many others - battle of Suessa, where Samnite force was tricked into attacking Accensi mistaking them for third line Triarii, just to be surprised by actual Triarii standing behind them, who then decided the battle by counterattack.. (There are many examples i could quote, these few are just from top of my head right now.. i can post a lot more later once at home)

Plus, there is the Player vs Player side of things - if you can see enemy deployment with all units unobscured, you can simply adjust to his plans without any issues. It kinda makes deployment phase unimportant, because what you do there, has no impact, you will always have time to adjust based on enemy formation. Why would you ever refuse a flank, if enemy can instantly see what you are doing and adjust accordingly? its like playing cards with other side allowed to peek in.

I wouldn't call a 1950 movie to be a proof of anything btw...