Slitherine

Pseudonius wrote:One of the best things about the rewrite is that it's being done by a FoG enthusiast with a long-term commitment to the game.
...

Just to be fair, much credit should be given to Keith who did the original FoG PC game and is a long time FoG ( and DBM and various editions of WRG ancients) player and did support the game from its creation through its initial release (in 2009?) through several updates plus all the army packs released so far, including doing a final game update for release with the Scenario pack this year. I hope that Dan's versions will become even better than Keith's last update but don't want anyone to think that the original foG PC wasn't done by someone who cared and who put their best into it.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:

Pseudonius wrote:One of the best things about the rewrite is that it's being done by a FoG enthusiast with a long-term commitment to the game.
...

Just to be fair, much credit should be given to Keith who did the original FoG PC game and is a long time FoG ( and DBM and various editions of WRG ancients) player and did support the game from its creation through its initial release (in 2009?) through several updates plus all the army packs released so far, including doing a final game update for release with the Scenario pack this year. I hope that Dan's versions will become even better than Keith's last update but don't want anyone to think that the original foG PC wasn't done by someone who cared and who put their best into it.

Chris

So Keith is Professor Tolkein to Dan's Peter Jackson?

...hmm

...does that make Iain, Bilbo?

Chris is right, guys. The FoG(RB), which is everything we've got until the FoG(U) will be finished, was giving and it still is giving us a lot of good time, and required a lot of hard work too. So please, give Keith and Hexwar team all the credit they deserve for it

cothyso wrote:Chris is right, guys. The FoG(RB), which is everything we've got until the FoG(U) will be finished, was giving and it still is giving us a lot of good time, and required a lot of hard work too. So please, give Keith and Hexwar team all the credit they deserve for it

I second that , for all its flaws , FoG is a great game and i have been playing it
for 2+ years now continuingly every day.
Ian

Is there a suggestion thread somewhere for game enhancements? For example, I wish I could play it in a window instead of full screen. Or is there an obvious way to do that which I am just missing?

Hit the "~" symbol (upper left on your keyboard). Then type in: "full-screen 0" for a window. "full-screen 1" for full screen. (don't type in quote symbols)

Hello guys,

I've just got out from my cage, 'been there for too long it seems..

So, tonight I'll be packing the first beta release candidate of the piece of software which devoured my latest months, namely the FoG(U) v1.8.10.650 BRC1 (201212110230).. Which means, after it will get approved, there should be only a matter of days until the beta starts..

You all owe me a BIG bottle of whiskey

PS: and you can have this, just to tease you up a little bit.. oh, and you owe me a second bottle for it

Hi Dan!

Great news!

The least you can ask for it's a black label of a Johnie Walker

Cheers

updated the post adding a console.log file

cothyso wrote:updated the post adding a console.log file

Very interesting reading. Will this be available to all with the new game? It will really help identify potential bugs and will help understanding of battle mechanics.

BTW Looking at the log I see that an 8 or more is needed to succeed on a cohesion test. Is this correct? I always thought it was 7

Final Score Outcome
> 7 - No change.
3 to 7 - Drop 1 cohesion level.
< 3 - Drop 2 cohesion levels if testing for friends routing, the death of a general or losing a melee or impact combat by 2 or more hits, otherwise 1 level

it's just wording, you actually need a score of 8 or more to pass it, getting a 7 will fail a CHT

So now it's going to be exactly as the manual says and not as it actually stands were you need a 7 or more.

That will lead us to shorter battles.

I suppose that the TT rules are as the manual right?

Cheers!

I've used the manual and the wiki as the main sources, double-checking between them, for FoG rules, with specific questions regarding the not-so-clear points detailed in the responses to questions sent to Richard and Chris.

cothyso wrote:

Final Score Outcome
> 7 - No change.
3 to 7 - Drop 1 cohesion level.
< 3 - Drop 2 cohesion levels if testing for friends routing, the death of a general or losing a melee or impact combat by 2 or more hits, otherwise 1 level

it's just wording, you actually need a score of 8 or more to pass it, getting a 7 will fail a CHT

The intent is that 7 or above should pass. The manual was wrong in that respect.

Chris

then it will be corrected

Well V2 is getting closer for release.

From having a quick look over various posts, it does seem that V2 will be very different to original.

Having said that I am a bit of a novice when it comes to various terminologies such as .log file etc

As for beta testing I'd like to help and if not hopefully you will include some of the top players and or players who have been playing a long time. Maybe worth checking out the numerous leagues, comps and campaigns and seeing who has done well in those and then hopefully inviting them to beta test.

Hi Eric,

You can sign up to be included on the beta testing.

http://www.slitherine.com/beta_test

I think your knowledge if the game could be very useful.

Cheers!

I've picked up digital FoG after a break, and in a couple of games noticed that when you it a unit in the rear, they disrupt but the number of combat dice isn't reduced - shouldn't they lose one dice per three in this curcumstance? Will this be fixed in the new FoG?

Hi all!
Any news about the progress of the beta testing procedure?

Kinda curious myself. How is the beta testing going? Also would like to know what the beta tester's first reaction to the re-write was.