Slingers vs Javelinmen

[Cheimison]

Also, warriors of this time did not wear armour on all parts of the body, arms and legs hit by ricochet can also cause casualties, not kills. A wounded soldier is still a casualty and need to be cared for. That is why a wounded soldier is worse than a dead one.

Depending on what you mean by 'this time', the Romans and maybe the Sarmatians did wear more armour than anyone ever had in history to that point. But you're right that it wasn't full body armor, except for perhaps cataphracted knights. Before the development of articulated plate armor full body coverage was prohibitively heavy.

[JorgenCAB]

my main point is, Slings and arrows were actually used against completely different types of targets than javelins. both (slings and arrows) were ideal weapons against lightly armored opponents, therefore both were usually used to suppress the light troops.. but if in game they all have same damage potential against heavy troops, then it means tactical role of both slingers and archers is completely different than it was in ancient times

Yeah, IRL heavy armor is extremely effective against all weapons. Medieval chain armor (not what we're talking about here) was physically impossible for a human to cut through, so they only way to hurt people was to repeatedly bash them or have HUGE weapons that added a lot of mass and leverage to the blow (large pikes). Plate armor is even worse. The only way to take down heavy infantry, other than harassing, surrounding or exhausting them (not something that's possible or realistic in set-piece battles) would be other heavy infantry. There are all sorts of strategic and logistic and cost reasons to not use heavy infantry, but man-to-man, in combat, they are very dominant. The heavier the infantry, the truer this becomes.
God Help you if you have to fight heavy cavalry that also doubles as heavy infantry, like the Normans. The way to deal with them is to shoot them with guns.
Realistically, any commander without heavy infantry would REFUSE TO ENGAGE heavy infantry, because fighting them is bullshit and ineffective.
Most games don't depict how well heavy armor, heavy infantry functions. But the solution is not to make the heavy infantry weaker, it's to make huge armies of them so expensive and prone to rebellion that it's not practical. Logistics, cost management and large army control is simply too great in basically any game. IRL if you have 40k heavily armored knights, they are very likely to decide that they're not taking your orders anymore (see: Burgundy).

All the evidence, from Europe and even the Mongols, is that you want most of your troops to have as much armor as possible, assuming you can afford it and they're not inept and likely to get killed. In real life there were reasons this was not practical, but these are very poorly represented in games. There are situations where this might not be the best idea, but of course soldiers can always TAKE OFF some of their armor if it's too hot, etc. something which actual knights did which is not possible in games.

Not having heavy infantry when you have the option is like not using a machine gun in WW1 when you have the option. The only reason every soldier didn't have a repeating rifle is because ammo and precision manufacturing is expensive, not because having more shots is a bad idea or something.

Again, this is why operational-level games are probably the most realistic - you don't have convenient set-piece battles, and you can't game your country into an invulnerable cash cow.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying heavily armored heavy infantry is invulnerable, even in engagements with light skirmishers they sometimes took casualties or fell down a hill or got separated and beat to death. I'm just saying that, insofar as you are engaging in close combat with a formed troop and have already arrived at the battlefield, you obviously want your melee fighters to be as well protected and armed as possible.

Pretty much the only reason not to wear as much armour on the battlefield are if you need to operate a weapon that exclude certain types. Archers for example can't use fully enclosed armour, that is why the Samurai used slightly less armour than European knights since they were archers first.

But other than that then I don't think you would arm any soldier deliberately with less armour. Most light troops are that way because they are cheap. The person himself would obviously use as much armour as they could afford at all times.

Romans did not all wear heavy armour during republican times either. It was not until after the reform that all legionaries started using the same protection. This means that during a large part of the Republic there were plenty of Roman soldiers with no metal armour and who used the same type of armour are say the Greek Hoplites. After the reform the Romans soldiers all had good quality armour becasue the Romans could afford it, but their auxilia and allies still had to provide their own armour (most of the time).

[JorgenCAB]

Also, warriors of this time did not wear armour on all parts of the body, arms and legs hit by ricochet can also cause casualties, not kills. A wounded soldier is still a casualty and need to be cared for. That is why a wounded soldier is worse than a dead one.

Depending on what you mean by 'this time', the Romans and maybe the Sarmatians did wear more armour than anyone ever had in history to that point. But you're right that it wasn't full body armor, except for perhaps cataphracted knights. Before the development of articulated plate armor full body coverage was prohibitively heavy.

I think that the main difference between say a Hoplite and a Roman was the mail shirt, otherwise they used the same type of armour, roughly. Hoplites usually had grieves on their legs but that was because of the shape of their shields. Linnen armour was generally enough to stop most weapons most of the time, mail in addition was pretty darn impossible to penetrate unless you had a really clean hit with a powerful weapon. They obviously used maces and other blunt weapons in ancient times to.

[Cheimison]

Also, warriors of this time did not wear armour on all parts of the body, arms and legs hit by ricochet can also cause casualties, not kills. A wounded soldier is still a casualty and need to be cared for. That is why a wounded soldier is worse than a dead one.

Depending on what you mean by 'this time', the Romans and maybe the Sarmatians did wear more armour than anyone ever had in history to that point. But you're right that it wasn't full body armor, except for perhaps cataphracted knights. Before the development of articulated plate armor full body coverage was prohibitively heavy.

I think that the main difference between say a Hoplite and a Roman was the mail shirt, otherwise they used the same type of armour, roughly. Hoplites usually had grieves on their legs but that was because of the shape of their shields. Linnen armour was generally enough to stop most weapons most of the time, mail in addition was pretty darn impossible to penetrate unless you had a really clean hit with a powerful weapon. They obviously used maces and other blunt weapons in ancient times to.

Roman armor also varies generally over time (as you indicate above), for example the really heavy 'Lorica Segmentata' stuff comes up in the mid-empire and then goes away, probably because it's damn hard to produce and expensive when you have as large an army as the Romans did. And for sure, earlier Roman armies were not walking around in the generic 'Centurion' garb that we see in Halloween costumes, in some ways the early Roman army is a kind of hybrid of hoplite and native Italic military traditions. But once you get into the middle and later empire the Romans are wearing a ton of armor, even the auxiliary/border troops of the Eastern Roman Empire seem to have worn more metal than many heavy troops of earlier centuries.

There is also an issue sort of orthaganol to cost, that producing high quality steel in large amounts is not something a lot of people knew how to do, even if they had all the iron and men and the desire. This also ties into what you were saying about why people use light troops - even if you're Emperor Max Buxx you cannot arbitrarily recruit an unlimited number of men in heavy armor, the suits of armor just don't exist even if you could theoretically afford them. Persianids and Romans, in general, seem to have worn more armor - and especially steel armor - than pretty much anyone until the northern European states started to turn EVERYONE into cataphracts.

[JaM2013]

its me saying 1+1 = 2 while game devs say 1+1=4 because its top down design and things works better this way...

Actually I saw it as you saying A > B, then Richard posted screenshots showing that A == B.

The whole basis of your argument was: slingers do more damage than javelins in the game. Richard showed that's not the case.

You won't budge from your view on the power of javelins, and that they're hard done by in this game. You have examples and one off stories that convince you that you're right, but you don't convince the devs or players. So, make your mod, call it "JaM's Javelin Man Mod", and move on

I know you're still a fan of the game, and you mean the best. But with the examples you give, and your reasoning - for example, maths of people's heights versus their shields, you might be much happier with a different set of rules that take a very bottom up approach. But then you would argue about the formulae and data used, and still not be happy.

Arguing for change to a game beyond a point is futile. Richard has conceded where things need to be looked at, usually after a first post about it or early in a thread. But not here, after over 200 posts. My prediction is, not here, even after 500 posts.

The search for the perfect wargame is eternal.

First, my point is that against armored units, A < B.. so even if A=B it is not ok. Another point is, there are no flanking bonuses for ranged fire.. none. which means, units are protected from all sides the same.. which is quite a problem for a game trying to depict ancient era combat - in renaissance or pike and shot era, practically nobody was carrying shields anymore (early spanish units are the exception), but in Field of Glory 2, all heavy infantry units carry shields...

Slingers or archers were not suitable for attacking heavy infantry frontally.. neither slingshot or arrow is enough to effectively disable shields.. It might hit something that is not protected by it, but chance of that is minimal.. Which is why i mentioned the height of a soldier... if your shield is protecting 75% of your frontal profile, then its clear 75% of hits will go into shield when fired at frontally (and you tend to rise your shield to protect yourself when fired at.. so that 25% would be mostly legs)... Did javelins disable shields? YES, maybe not with every single hit, but having few javelins stuck in the shield would definitely be problematic enough for soldier to drop his shield and fight without it.. This is mentioned way too many times to be completely ignored..

Does flanking play role in combat?? HELL YES IT DOES.. would it improve the game if it got implemented? I BET it would solve problems with archer armies not being effective in battles quite well... fast horsearchers would have no problem outflanking enemy infantry and hit them in the backs... it would require completely different decisions while handling the enemy skirmishers, because it would be not viable completely ignoring them and letting them bombard you for 5 turns untill they run out of ammo... It would also give player opportunity to use it to own advantage, and use skirmishers as flankers.. in MP battles, both players would definitely need to neutralize enemy skirmishers before main battle...

I repeat, it would give this game more tactical realism in the long run.

[rbodleyscott]

Another point is, there are no flanking bonuses for ranged fire.. none. which means, units are protected from all sides the same.. which is quite a problem for a game trying to depict ancient era combat - in renaissance or pike and shot era, practically nobody was carrying shields anymore (early spanish units are the exception), but in Field of Glory 2, all heavy infantry units carry shields....

I don't expect you to be converted to our way of thinking, but let me explain the rationale behind not making the above change in the "vanilla" game.

While what you say about shields is true, you have to consider the overall picture. The game could give a bonus when shooting at the shieldless flank or rear of a unit. But what if it is easier for skirmishers to get behind a unit's flank in the game than it was historically? If so, then the effect will happen too often.

Past the initial stages of a battle, heavy infantry should be able to more or less ignore skirmishers, but this would force them to constantly turn to face them to avoid being shot in the shieldless flank.

A solid line will prevent this, it is true, but that will penalise the AI because it finds it a lot harder than a skilled player to maintain a solid line.

We have to consider whether anything that adds more complexity to the mechanisms will effectively penalise the AI. As this is primarily a game, we make some compromises to avoid degrading the performance of the AI.

It would be easy enough to mod in the directional thing, and I hope you will do so. If you need any help in doing so, I am always willing to help modders with coding.

[JaM2013]

and that explanation i understand. AI behavior is very important in these types of games, and its usually better to sacrifice level of detail for better AI behavior. thanks.

[Cheimison]

and that explanation i understand. AI behavior is very important in these types of games, and its usually better to sacrifice level of detail for better AI behavior. thanks.

Yeah, the more involved a game the more the AI is going to do things wrong. Complexity is what kills the AI in Paradox games, too much going on for it to reasonably function without cheating (which it does, all the time).

Still, if skirmisher flanking was a big issue it would mean that my hoplite armies are going to use skirmishers a lot more just to keep the enemy skirmishers off me - which Spartans certainly did, for just this reason. Hoplites were tough but lumbering and you needed all those peasant-slaves with slings and arrows to prevent you from running into outrageous fortune. As it is I typically just tank them and use my skirmishers to concentrate on one or two enemies on the flank.

[JorgenCAB]

The nature of a game being turn based I-GO-U-GO will also have to give up some realism for the overall end result of a battle. Units would not just turn 90 degrees and stand there exposing their flanks for a turn so skirmishers can shoot at it for a turn before charging that enemy in the flank. This is the result of a turn based game set on a grid system.

[JaM2013]

Level of simplification is understandable, as this is not AAA title, but independent with limited resources. Game development is not cheap, and definitely not easy. Usually there comes the point where devs have to cut additional features from game (especially if they would require additional AI improvements) to release the game in time.. game needs to bring revenue, otherwise there wont be additional content coming.. if game sells well, there might come time when devs might decide to improve the gameplay further (i hope)

[TDefender]

And that's why I think that, at the moment, FoG 2 it's a great, a huge step forward as to single player and graphics but some step back as to multiplayer and tactical gameplay. Just my opinion, of course.

[JaM2013]

And that's why I think that, at the moment, FoG 2 it's a great, a huge step forward as to single player and graphics but some step back as to multiplayer and tactical gameplay. Just my opinion, of course.

I'd say, this game is as good as Pike and Shot was, in some regards better. it has a lot of potential for the future, and i hope devs will improve it over time. But as it is right now, its still superior game to anything else that tries to portray Ancient warfare. you can play Total War games for shiny graphics, but tactically wise, they are bland and quite unsatisfactory even if they have a lot higher level of detail... you cannot build a house without a base, and base design of TW games is just not good. (blobbing is something i cannot forgive.. not after 20 years that series has been developed)

[Cheimison]

The nature of a game being turn based I-GO-U-GO will also have to give up some realism for the overall end result of a battle. Units would not just turn 90 degrees and stand there exposing their flanks for a turn so skirmishers can shoot at it for a turn before charging that enemy in the flank. This is the result of a turn based game set on a grid system.

Which makes me ask again: why are WEGO games so rare? I can understand why it would be a pain in a board game (though Diplomacy has a WEGO system!), but on a computer it doesn't seem like that much of a problem. It's also much more realistic than being able to continuously issue orders to units - the amount of control the player has over his army is already freakish, even without an IGOUGO or real time command system.

[hjc]

FOG2 is a great simulation of a table-top wargame - that's what I really like about it.

I have played a lot of the Battlefront Combat Mission games, and my preferred mode in them is Wego. For that tactical level of combat the 60 seconds where you have to watch, impotently, as your orders either lead to success or the destruction of your pixeltruppen makes it a gripping experience. Not sure how well Wego would tranlate to FOG, though it would be interesting to see. As it is I'm happy with IGO-UGO.

[Cheimison]

FOG2 is a great simulation of a table-top wargame - that's what I really like about it.
Not sure how well Wego would tranlate to FOG, though it would be interesting to see. As it is I'm happy with IGO-UGO.

It's a fun game, for sure. One thing a lot of games don't have though is a reflection of how little a commander knew about what was going on during a battle. Especially in the age of pike and shot, you'd be lucky if you could even see the enemy. Even with combat penalties for lack of a general, or an activation system like many hex games have, the simple awareness of the placement and objective quality of troops allows a coordinated strategy moment-to-moment that wouldn't exist on a battlefield.

I would like to see how a system with fog-of-war for your own men, runner-based orders and WEGO would function. It would probably annoy a lot of players, lol.

What I am describing would be more like a General Sim than a tactical game.

[JorgenCAB]

The nature of a game being turn based I-GO-U-GO will also have to give up some realism for the overall end result of a battle. Units would not just turn 90 degrees and stand there exposing their flanks for a turn so skirmishers can shoot at it for a turn before charging that enemy in the flank. This is the result of a turn based game set on a grid system.

Which makes me ask again: why are WEGO games so rare? I can understand why it would be a pain in a board game (though Diplomacy has a WEGO system!), but on a computer it doesn't seem like that much of a problem. It's also much more realistic than being able to continuously issue orders to units - the amount of control the player has over his army is already freakish, even without an IGOUGO or real time command system.

I would definitely play that... I basically play the general and I only see what the general see and I have to give out order as reports come in. The game should basically be pausable real time. I would change between my generals view and a map that show roughly where units are with some tolerance levels (even my own I can't see) like how you spot ships and submarines in tactical wargames such as Harpoon. I would play that game...

The closest I come to a good tabletop game when it comes to Fog of War and good Command system (for ancient and medieval warfare) and unit movement not based on traditional I-Go-U-Go is either Piquet or Sword & Spear. Neither have player turns and you can never know when and of troops will move or fight and how well they will do so. Some traditional players don't like those games because they feel it is too RANDOM and you cant control every aspect of every unit at any time, but I like it because it make battles feel more real and dynamic.