Slitherine

stefanjhill wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: (Although the situation is currently worse than it might be because the full TT anarchy exception rules have not yet been implemented).

I would like to see these fully implemented before the PC designers start deviating from the TT rules too much. The TT rules work fine and perhaps I'm missing something but I can't see why they can't work "as is" in the PC version. The closer the PC version is to the TT version the better. It means the PC version can be used as a test bed before buying lead and paint for a TT army.

2 cents,
S.

I woudl also seen all that restrictions added to the PC game. But that alone will not be enough.
As rbodleyscott says, something more hast to be tweaked, some added bonus to passing anarchy test, as the FoG PC and FoG TT are much more different that you may think.
For a start, in the PC you have 3 or 4 BG for each TT BG, so every turn in the PC game you will have to make (and pass or go anarchy) x3 or x4 as much tests than in the TT, highly increasing the chances that some of them will fail and go nuts.
To make PC and TT versions behavior more similar you have to make the rules and rolls bonus different, as they use two different scales, movement system (hex) and turn structures.
I don't own or play the TT game, but for what i've read around i highly doubt you can use the PC as a training or test bed for the TT game.

The use of hexes and small BG also makes the movements and positions on the PC game much more fluid and less linear than on the TT
This makes much more difficult to "shield" your line with skirmishers so they don't get "tempted" by enemy skirmishers, as its easy to sneak between enemy LF or send them evading back with one stronger LF BG and then set others LF as "baits" for the pikes or cav or legionaries to go rampaging

Cheers

PS: +1 to Pantherboy comment. It woudl be nice if some developer would come around and offer its opinion about the problem. Its something they are working or will be working in?? or its all considered WAD??

As has been said above, even if the TT exception for charging through friends to contact skirmishers is implemented, it will not work as well as on the TT because it is harder to maintain a full LF screen on the PC.

One possibility would be to keep a flag for each unit and set it if the unit is shot at. Then on its next turn, it must test not to anarchy charge skirmishers, otherwise not. At the end of its own turn the flag is reset to 0.

This sort of thing would be impossible to implement in the TT game without breaking the TT game philosophy of not having to remember things from one turn to the next. Not a problem for a computer game, apart from the need to add a flag field to the unit database. (Not sure how flexible the data structure is).

The main problem with PC version is, as i say in other post, that is in the middle of nowhere, isnt a "port" of TT version and dont have it own evolution and the final result is a game with many problems because it covers ancient and medieval periods but cant reflect this periods because some ancient features break medieval game and viceversa.

In the case of anarchy charges, well, i think that add an anarchy factor could be interesting (you could add it as a nacionality paramater because many armies have allies or troops from other territories), isnt the same a barbarian army than a roman or hellenistic army, professional armies can wait enemy, leave then attack their lines and when they are disordered start their own attack, until version 1.2.5 this was the way to play with professional armies but now this tactis is missing because you need a very good luck to have a line of battle and not a cheese line and proffesional armies lose the hability to retreat in good order forcing this armies to do a frontal assault and with a good player in the other army you can find a hard bone. As many people says, in TT a unit is equal to 3-4 units in PC when in TT an unit do an anarchy charge it has an option to survive because usually it can survive to 2 or 3 attacks but in PC you can find small units searching your rear and doing attacks in a deadly succesion.

Use LF to prevent anarchy is a patch that you can use as player but not all armies can do it and use this tactic has it own problems (the use of poor LF to fix other LF for example because you cant defeat with jabelins a slinger or archer unit before enemy HF or MF arrive) and not all armies have access to LF and of course, are armies that are LF killers (armies with LH for example)... i find force players to use LF to prevent a game "bug" is a little... and dont talk about the historic point of view because for example you could be force to use amounts of LF in armies that never use it in these numbers and for these jobs.

I think that is time to start an evolution for PC game and leave the army packs because i prefer have a good game with less armies than a game with lots of armies but where you need to play in a way to prevent game deficiencies.

PD: PC game as "demo" of TT game??? well, i buy PC game and i dont have any plan to buy the TT game and for me isnt a demo is a PC game totally independent of TT but now TT is more complete that PC in many features (when we can see in PC a limit to flank tactics??? i am in a game where 6 enemy cavalry units cross my battle line from left wing to right flank and i cant do nothing to prevent this because enemy refuse advance and i need cover my part of the map and his part of the map).

Scutarii wrote:but cant reflect this periods because some ancient features break medieval game and viceversa.

Personally I don't think this is true. Can you give any examples?

professional armies lose the ability to retreat in good order forcing this armies to do a frontal assault

Retreating in good order is not something that occurred in ancient/medieval battles until the battle was lost. Retreating in good order facing the enemy was exceptionally rare. It was an unrealistic feature of the old version of the game that it was so easy to do.

For example anarchy works equal in ancient than in medieval because is more easy implements a single anarchy system generic for all periods (changing some unit atributes) than create a specific system per period (diferent weapons, tactics...), for example some ancient armies have a better command structure than medieval but game dont reflect this and you depends of buy commanders (this is more a rule problem but it borns in the necesity of have generic rules for diferents periods but you cant compare the command structure in a roman army than in a medieval army for example). I dont say that is bad but every period for me need their own rules (in medieval battles tactical changes in the middle of a battle are strange more than in ancient) and different unit qualities (same movement rates in ancient and in medieval armies when medieval armies have less soldiers and more levies... for example) because war in ancient isnt the same than in medieval as in napoleonic period armies fight different than XVIII armies are similar but not equal.

Retreats in good order could not be historical but helps to compensate the ability to move troops from one wing to another without penalties (i am in a battle and need retreat my line because my enemy dont advance and move all his calvary to the other flank in my own face but cant do nothing becase cant arrive in time) and this force you to attack attack attack even when you have your rear in danger because now you need 2 turns to change defensive line (retreat one wing to cover your flank) or retreat and do the same "camper" tactic than your enemy because you dont want wait to the last moment.

PD: i am not a TT player only a PC player and find that TT rules dont work in PC game because scale and movement system are different do a more complex generic system could be one solution, another could be do different rules per period.

arsan wrote: I don't own or play the TT game, but for what i've read around i highly doubt you can use the PC as a training or test bed for the TT game.

Having come from DBM --> DBMM --> FoG it's what I was counting on! It would saddened me to learn that the rules coded into the PC game are so far removed from the TT version that I can't use the PC version for a few rounds of "what if".

Is it true? From what little I have read of the PC version manual the basic premise of combat and combat outcomes seems reasonably intact.

Is there a document that lists the differences (other than the painful obvious such as not using a measuring device in the PC version...) between the TT and PC versions?

Cheers,
Stefan.

stefanjhill wrote:

arsan wrote: I don't own or play the TT game, but for what i've read around i highly doubt you can use the PC as a training or test bed for the TT game.

Having come from DBM --> DBMM --> FoG it's what I was counting on! It would saddened me to learn that the rules coded into the PC game are so far removed from the TT version that I can't use the PC version for a few rounds of "what if".

Is it true? From what little I have read of the PC version manual the basic premise of combat and combat outcomes seems reasonably intact.

Is there a document that lists the differences (other than the painful obvious such as not using a measuring device in the PC version...) between the TT and PC versions?

Cheers,
Stefan.

I see no issue with using FOG PC as a training ground for the table top. It won't teach you all the ins and outs and the hex based system will go by the wayside on the table top, but pretty much all of the armies will play very similarly to their table top counterpart. There will be a little bit of a finnicky combat resolution issues with the way the PC version handles movement/combat, but you can absolutely use the PC game as a way to learn the basic mechanics for the game and get a feel for how different armies will play.

Now if you are expecting to be able to jump straight from the PC version to the table top version without a basic crash course, that's probably not going to happen. But I can tell you first hand (with a few friends) that a couple of games on the PC version made the initial crash course to the table top version a lot easier when I was teaching them the game.

RyanDG wrote:Now if you are expecting to be able to jump straight from the PC version to the table top version without a basic crash course, that's probably not going to happen. But I can tell you first hand (with a few friends) that a couple of games on the PC version made the initial crash course to the table top version a lot easier when I was teaching them the game.

I play the TT version once every 2 weeks (Classical Greeks and sometime as Hellenstics - hey where the hell did my flaming pigs go Mr Bodley Scott, hmmm, hmmm?!)

The computer game attracted me as I could try a few differing armies and see if I liked the way they play. I was working under the assumption that other than the differing methods of moving and BG organisation (or lack of it) that FoG PC was basically under the hood FoG TT mechanically speaking.

S.

stefanjhill wrote:The computer game attracted me as I could try a few differing armies and see if I liked the way they play. I was working under the assumption that other than the differing methods of moving and BG organisation (or lack of it) that FoG PC was basically under the hood FoG TT mechanically speaking.

S.

Yep - if you are already comfortable with the table top rules, the FOG PC version is absolutely a great place to try out armies. There is nothing in the game aside from some LH/LF funny business that wouldn't give you an accurate representation on how the army would play on the table top - all things considered of course.

RyanDG wrote:

stefanjhill wrote:The computer game attracted me as I could try a few differing armies and see if I liked the way they play. I was working under the assumption that other than the differing methods of moving and BG organisation (or lack of it) that FoG PC was basically under the hood FoG TT mechanically speaking.

S.

Yep - if you are already comfortable with the table top rules, the FOG PC version is absolutely a great place to try out armies. There is nothing in the game aside from some LH/LF funny business that wouldn't give you an accurate representation on how the army would play on the table top - all things considered of course.

{sigh of relief} Good to hear.

Thanks,
S.