Slitherine

Interesting really cause my laptop is not very good too but with no shadows, windowed screen mode and no anti-aliasing i can play it(fog2) with no problem. Hmm...

Yggdrassil wrote:P&S units gove the impression of actual units, as in clumps on men standing in formation. FoGII units look like token figures.

hmmm, I don't have P&S, but I think that the FOGII units look great, although I concur that it does not play well on my laptop--I can play, but just barely.

Lancier, you play with windows mode on, or off?

Yggdrassil wrote:

julianbarker wrote:
For me supersized out of scale animated figures repeating the same moves over and over destroy the immersion. It makes the game look like a tabletop wargame (which for FoG might make sense as it is derived from a table top game) but P&S graphics look like 16th and 17th century illustrations of battles so for me help with the immersion as you are seeing the battle as a contemporary would imagine a battle from on high. I would rather see a pike phalanx as a solid block of close order troops under flowing banners etc rather than a dozen or so figures dancing around or shadow boxing. I never bought FoG due to the tabletop look and nearly didn't buy FoG II for this reason.

I agree with this completely. P&S units gove the impression of actual units, as in clumps on men standing in formation. FoGII units look like token figures.

Though higher level of detail is very much needed. And more artwork to appear as illustrations of said units - right now everything uses the same few pictures - swiss, landesknechts, tercios, swedish units...everything is the same.

Though, as understand it, there will be no P&S 2. We will get maybe in future the appropriate module for FoG II but that's it. FoGII basically is the sequel.

I did expect my opinion would be the minority, but I stand by it. I think having the pike units lower their pikes when charging or in contact with the enemy would be appropriate.

Perhaps a compromise could be made between upgrading the P&S graphics and retaining what people say they like about the look of massed units. To my eyes, instead of massed units of men it looks like little blocks of wood scurrying around, which is even less immersive that a few figures representing hundreds of men.

I do like the table-top look of FoGII - it's exactly what I wanted for many years, but I come from a table-top background.

And I prefer the way P&S runs a campaign. A map gives a sense of purpose and puts battles into context - I know what I'm fighting for (or giving up).

While I can appreciate the animations in FoG II, I must confess that I prefer the overall look of P&S. Tabletop rules notwithstanding, a pike block of sixteen figures just isn't a phalanx for me.

And I prefer shooting in both the active and passive players' turns. With a few extra skins, P&S could easily be stretched backwards to cover the Ancient, Classical and Medieval periods.

We know from the SJ game that generals can be incorporated in the same engine.

Yggdrassil wrote:

julianbarker wrote:
For me supersized out of scale animated figures repeating the same moves over and over destroy the immersion. It makes the game look like a tabletop wargame (which for FoG might make sense as it is derived from a table top game) but P&S graphics look like 16th and 17th century illustrations of battles so for me help with the immersion as you are seeing the battle as a contemporary would imagine a battle from on high. I would rather see a pike phalanx as a solid block of close order troops under flowing banners etc rather than a dozen or so figures dancing around or shadow boxing. I never bought FoG due to the tabletop look and nearly didn't buy FoG II for this reason.

I agree with this completely. P&S units gove the impression of actual units, as in clumps on men standing in formation. FoGII units look like token figures.

Though higher level of detail is very much needed. And more artwork to appear as illustrations of said units - right now everything uses the same few pictures - swiss, landesknechts, tercios, swedish units...everything is the same.

Though, as understand it, there will be no P&S 2. We will get maybe in future the appropriate module for FoG II but that's it. FoGII basically is the sequel.

Maybe Total War style. Scaled units, hundreds of figures, then zoom in to see all the glory.
Anyway, the engine can't do mixed units well for now, only one 3D figure per squad / unit. Hope Pip does wonders in future versions.
Or maybe a unit occupies more than one square and can combine several individual unit blocks like a real tabletop game. Each unit still functions as individual squad and can shoot and fight separately. But must keep their formation as per doctrine. We have group move in the game already.

I don't think ammo limit is appropriate for P&S and SJ sequels. I imagine in these eras, there are runners behind the lines who shuttle ammo to the units. In ancient battles, there are very few accounts on this sort of logistic arrangements.

On, yes 76mm.

76mm wrote:Lancier, you play with windows mode on, or off?

I think you can really see the limits of the FoG II approach to graphics when you look at e.g. skirmishers and light horse. Or, to cite my least favourite example, Triarii. This is so clearly derived from table top gaming, and to my mind just doesn't look right in a PC game.

I loved the P&S approach to graphics, though I agree with an earlier poster who suggested adding more skins so that units of different nations and eras could be differentiated, rather than mostly going with generic types. Though I guess that the economics for doing that just wouldn't add up.

Likewise, I suspect that the rationale for the graphics in FoG II, inc. the slightly annoying (IMHO!) animations, is basically driven by marketing needs. A bit of a shame, but probably inevitable.

Not that any of this alters the fact that FoG II, alongside P&S and Sengoku Jidai, is my all-time favourite computer wargame...

Cheers,
Bombax.

I love the graphics and table top look myself. FoG 2 is definitely my all time favourite game. But more than the graphics I think the game play is excellent. I want my pc games to look like table top rather than a PC game. Guess we are all different.

cromlechi wrote:Guess we are all different.

Indeed, and a jolly good thing too

Totally agree.
FoGII is a reform after Sengoku and PnS i think, in every respect...

cromlechi wrote:I love the graphics and table top look myself. FoG 2 is definitely my all time favourite game. But more than the graphics I think the game play is excellent. I want my pc games to look like table top rather than a PC game. Guess we are all different.

Bombax wrote:I think you can really see the limits of the FoG II approach to graphics when you look at e.g. skirmishers and light horse. Or, to cite my least favourite example, Triarii. This is so clearly derived from table top gaming, and to my mind just doesn't look right in a PC game.

I'm confused about what exactly it is you consider the problem with Triarii. Is it the number of figures or the graphics?

Patrick Ward wrote:

Bombax wrote:I think you can really see the limits of the FoG II approach to graphics when you look at e.g. skirmishers and light horse. Or, to cite my least favourite example, Triarii. This is so clearly derived from table top gaming, and to my mind just doesn't look right in a PC game.

I'm confused about what exactly it is you consider the problem with Triarii. Is it the number of figures or the graphics?

Oh, just the number of figures. My own taste is more for the 'figure blocks' used in P&S, and I think that the Triarii are a good example of where FoG II replicates a 'table top' look rather than a 'battlefield' look. But as others have pointed out, tastes differ...

Indeed, "de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum" ^^

What if we change PnS and Sengoku MAPVIEW file as FOG II(add PITCHLIMIT 15 // 25 and // to zoomlimit and zoominlimit) :

FOG2 mapview
PITCH 45
PITCHLIMIT 15 // 25
ZOOM 400
ZOOMLIMIT 1200 // 500
ZOOMINLIMIT 200 // 50
ROTATE 30
FOV 30

instead of

PnS-Sengoku mapview
PITCH 45
ZOOM 400
ZOOMLIMIT 500
ZOOMINLIMIT 200
ROTATE 30
FOV 30

Will we have the same camera angle in these 2 games like fog2? maybe i just have to change and look? ^^

Lancier wrote:Indeed, "de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum" ^^

What if we change PnS and Sengoku MAPVIEW file as FOG II(add PITCHLIMIT 15 // 25 and // to zoomlimit and zoominlimit) :

FOG2 mapview
PITCH 45
PITCHLIMIT 15 // 25
ZOOM 400
ZOOMLIMIT 1200 // 500
ZOOMINLIMIT 200 // 50
ROTATE 30
FOV 30

instead of

PnS-Sengoku mapview
PITCH 45
ZOOM 400
ZOOMLIMIT 500
ZOOMINLIMIT 200
ROTATE 30
FOV 30

Will we have the same camera angle in these 2 games like fog2? maybe i just have to change and look? ^^

I don't think you can change the camera angle (Pitch) in game with the mouse/keyboard in P&S & SJ, and the Pitch settings that you have given are exactly the same (45), so there would be no difference as far as camera angle goes. You would get more zoom with those settings though, I think.

These are the settings I use for P&S and SJ, they will give you a much nicer camera angle, in my opinion:

PITCH 23
ZOOM 400
ZOOMLIMIT 900
ZOOMINLIMIT 50
ROTATE 30
FOV 30

Ah in fact i am using PITCH 25 now in FOG II which is quite satisfactory as i play with no shadows already cause of my computer specs. I wrote here the (45) defaults...

But yes will try your numbers for P&S and SJ, thanks Paul.

Paul59 wrote:

I don't think you can change the camera angle (Pitch) in game with the mouse/keyboard in P&S & SJ, and the Pitch settings that you have given are exactly the same (45), so there would be no difference as far as camera angle goes. You would get more zoom with those settings though, I think.

These are the settings I use for P&S and SJ, they will give you a much nicer camera angle, in my opinion:

PITCH 23
ZOOM 400
ZOOMLIMIT 900
ZOOMINLIMIT 50
ROTATE 30
FOV 30

Bombax wrote:

Patrick Ward wrote:

Bombax wrote:I think you can really see the limits of the FoG II approach to graphics when you look at e.g. skirmishers and light horse. Or, to cite my least favourite example, Triarii. This is so clearly derived from table top gaming, and to my mind just doesn't look right in a PC game.

I'm confused about what exactly it is you consider the problem with Triarii. Is it the number of figures or the graphics?

Oh, just the number of figures. My own taste is more for the 'figure blocks' used in P&S, and I think that the Triarii are a good example of where FoG II replicates a 'table top' look rather than a 'battlefield' look. But as others have pointed out, tastes differ...

Ah fair enough.

+1 WITH graphic update, since I find P&S graphics awful.
I play FOGII both on a 4 years old PC and on a 10 years old PC: everything ok on the former, minor performance issues on the latter.

I would definitely like to see the graphics be changed to FOG 2 standards, except that I beg you not to replace popup colors to the pale grey on beige that many of hus have trouble seeing. The white letters on a black background of Pike and Shot should not change. The terrain is much more clear and adds a great feel for the battl, as do the troop graphics.

And I would like to see disciplined infantry not pursue opponents, as in FOG 2, though I definitely want the push back mechanic added.