Slitherine

klayeckles wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

klayeckles wrote:new issue...i actually had a battle where i had NO generals! couldn't figure out why...any suggestions?

There is a bug that can cause this if an army suffered high enough losses in the previous campaign battle that the reinforcement points are insufficient to fully refit the existing units, so there are no points left for recruiting new units.

This fix for this bug will soon be released in a patch.

just so you have all the info...this occured on a MP skirmish i created.

Can you give some more details - such as the army lists involved, scenario type, the size of the battle etc.etc.

and since i'm talking to the creator...(the game, not the universe (or at least i think)) i've been playing since the first tabletop version, and must say that the system is a fantastic effort. it can be played beer and pretzelie, but that style will always lose to a cagey vetran...so a great simulation, AND a wonderful chess match. FOG II is closer to the table top version...and likely closer to the real thing. as great as FOG i has been, the hexes do make things more manouverable and a bit "gamey" (great for the gamers like me). So congrats on the BEST ancient system ever. research and army builds are great too. just guessing you'll never get rich on this baby...but you have given millionss of hours of enjoyment to many dreamers/gamers !!! THANK YOU!!
klay

Many thanks.

Note that in an MP skirmish (as in SP) the generals won't appear until Force Selection has been accepted.

w_michael wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:As I say, it is something that is under consideration.

Thanks. It is not as big a deal once you know the gaming trick.

The problem is though that it really shouldn't be necessary to "know the gaming trick" in order to play the game effectively.
I do hope that RBS will rethink this one, as he has indicated he might do.
Cheers,
Bombax.

I have been thinking about this. Maybe one way of doing it is to give every army a C-in-C, but then players would have to buy any additional sub-generals? And maybe the maximum number of sub-generals available could be adjusted according to the size of the battle? So for the smaller battles players could buy up to three, medium battles it would be 4 and large battles would be 5. And maybe the cost of these sub-generals would be around 20 or 25 points each.

I mostly play the smallest size of battles in FOG2 and I think that one C-in-C and 3 sub generals are about right. I can get by with 2 sub-generals if needs be, but I would feel very uncomfortable starting with just 1. For medieval battles, which tended to be smaller, you would usually have 4 main commanders. One for each of the vanguard, main battle and rearguard and the C-in-C would often be with the reserve. So the proportions that I am suggesting feel about right. In FOG1 we could choose the number of leaders and I think, on balance, I would prefer to be able to do this in FOG2 as well.

My thoughts mirror stockwellpete's. It would be good to have the option to buy more or less generals, subject to the variety and sizes of force chosen.

Bombax wrote:

w_michael wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:As I say, it is something that is under consideration.

Thanks. It is not as big a deal once you know the gaming trick.

The problem is though that it really shouldn't be necessary to "know the gaming trick" in order to play the game effectively.
I do hope that RBS will rethink this one, as he has indicated he might do.
Cheers,
Bombax.

Just another vote for a change to the current system. It is WAY too gamey. I had no idea about this before reading this thread, since it's not explained in the game at all, which is a huge oversight in my opinion.

The system in FOG1 where you purchased your leaders was excellent. Please go back to this.

I think that the purpose of dividing the army into commands is closely related to the topic of sub-generals, and should be reviewed at the same time. IMHO sub-generals should not provide cohesion test or maneuver benefits to units not in their command. As others have mentioned, experienced players will immediately transfer infantry into a cavalry command so that the sub-general can be transferred to an infantry unit and fight in the main battle line. Unless I am fiddling the rules to place sub-generals where I want, the only purpose of commands is to facilitate group movement early on the battle.

stockwellpete wrote:I have been thinking about this. Maybe one way of doing it is to give every army a C-in-C, but then players would have to buy any additional sub-generals? And maybe the maximum number of sub-generals available could be adjusted according to the size of the battle? So for the smaller battles players could buy up to three, medium battles it would be 4 and large battles would be 5. And maybe the cost of these sub-generals would be around 20 or 25 points each.

I mostly play the smallest size of battles in FOG2 and I think that one C-in-C and 3 sub generals are about right. I can get by with 2 sub-generals if needs be, but I would feel very uncomfortable starting with just 1. For medieval battles, which tended to be smaller, you would usually have 4 main commanders. One for each of the vanguard, main battle and rearguard and the C-in-C would often be with the reserve. So the proportions that I am suggesting feel about right. In FOG1 we could choose the number of leaders and I think, on balance, I would prefer to be able to do this in FOG2 as well.

+1 for this idea. I am used to the tabletop version of purchasing generals - usually you see 3-4 in an 800 AP game. The player should have the choice to take more or less commanders depending on the army. Too gamey right now. Glad I saw this thread before the tournament!

The Battle of Ashdown 871 AD is an example of were both the Anglo-Saxons and Danish split their infantry into two commands with separate generals. Alfred the Great led one Anglo-Saxon command and Aethelred led the other. On the viking side brothers Halfdan and Bagsecg were in one command and the 5 Jarls led the second command. It is overly simplistic to give infantry armies just one general just because they didn't have two wings and a reserve of cavalry.

stockwellpete wrote:I have been thinking about this. Maybe one way of doing it is to give every army a C-in-C, but then players would have to buy any additional sub-generals? And maybe the maximum number of sub-generals available could be adjusted according to the size of the battle? So for the smaller battles players could buy up to three, medium battles it would be 4 and large battles would be 5. And maybe the cost of these sub-generals would be around 20 or 25 points each.

I mostly play the smallest size of battles in FOG2 and I think that one C-in-C and 3 sub generals are about right. I can get by with 2 sub-generals if needs be, but I would feel very uncomfortable starting with just 1. For medieval battles, which tended to be smaller, you would usually have 4 main commanders. One for each of the vanguard, main battle and rearguard and the C-in-C would often be with the reserve. So the proportions that I am suggesting feel about right. In FOG1 we could choose the number of leaders and I think, on balance, I would prefer to be able to do this in FOG2 as well.

Totally agree. The sub-commanders system from FoG is still very adaptable . I just hope devs are open to some little gameplay enhancement/modification. FoG 2 is a very good game with tremendous potential but a couple of feautures back from FoG are very missed imho.

I prepared a 1600 point Roman army for large map in "Create Battle" and had four generals. Then I created a game in multiplayer with exactly the same army build and only had two generals. Why is this?

Were both armies deployed with the same groupings?

the_iron_duke wrote:I prepared a 1600 point Roman army for large map in "Create Battle" and had four generals. Then I created a game in multiplayer with exactly the same army build and only had two generals. Why is this?

Generals are added to infantry centre, left wing cavalry (not lights), right wing cavalry and reserve cavalry. If any of these groups do not exist in your deployment, a general isn't added.

rbodleyscott wrote:Generals are added to infantry centre, left wing cavalry (not lights), right wing cavalry and reserve cavalry. If any of these groups do not exist in your deployment, a general isn't added.

Do I need to set those groups during Force selection? The generals are already assigned when deployment starts.

Cumandante wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:Generals are added to infantry centre, left wing cavalry (not lights), right wing cavalry and reserve cavalry. If any of these groups do not exist in your deployment, a general isn't added.

Do I need to set those groups during Force selection? The generals are already assigned when deployment starts.

Yes

rbodleyscott wrote:

Cumandante wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:Generals are added to infantry centre, left wing cavalry (not lights), right wing cavalry and reserve cavalry. If any of these groups do not exist in your deployment, a general isn't added.

Do I need to set those groups during Force selection? The generals are already assigned when deployment starts.

Yes

I don't understand this. How does one set up these groups before deployment? Until one accepts one's army composition, there are no generals on the field and one cannot reassign command structure.

the_iron_duke wrote:I don't understand this. How does one set up these groups before deployment? Until one accepts one's army composition, there are no generals on the field and one cannot reassign command structure.

As I understand it, these groups are abstract and not formal. If you have 1-2 or more cav on a wing, you will get a general there. Same for the other wing, with the central infantry general being guaranteed. IMO this is biased towards "traditional" armies: armies with little or no cav units are handicapped (Illyrians for example).

Cumandante wrote:

the_iron_duke wrote:I don't understand this. How does one set up these groups before deployment? Until one accepts one's army composition, there are no generals on the field and one cannot reassign command structure.

As I understand it, these groups are abstract and not formal. If you have 1-2 or more cav on a wing, you will get a general there. Same for the other wing, with the central infantry general being guaranteed. IMO this is biased towards "traditional" armies: armies with little or no cav units are handicapped (Illyrians for example).

So to get the free bonus generals, one moves cavalry units to the sides of the deployment area at the unit purchase stage? Normally, I don't touch the units until I've completed purchasing them and have moved on to deployment stage.

the_iron_duke wrote:

Cumandante wrote:

the_iron_duke wrote:I don't understand this. How does one set up these groups before deployment? Until one accepts one's army composition, there are no generals on the field and one cannot reassign command structure.

As I understand it, these groups are abstract and not formal. If you have 1-2 or more cav on a wing, you will get a general there. Same for the other wing, with the central infantry general being guaranteed. IMO this is biased towards "traditional" armies: armies with little or no cav units are handicapped (Illyrians for example).

So to get the free bonus generals, one moves cavalry units to the sides of the deployment area at the unit purchase stage? Normally, I don't touch the units until I've completed purchasing them and have moved on to deployment stage.

I suggest just clicking on Autodeploy repeatedly till you get a suitable deployment, then tidy it up after completing force selection.

I like autodeploy and almost never adjust it's pretty arrangement. I like how it spaces stuff out a bit to make your line flexible and it puts a good amount in reserve behind your line cause the badguys always end up getting around somehow plus it puts cavalry and what not in positions where they ought to be.