Slitherine

Right, its not some sort of major catastrophic issue, and its something that will get picked up by the player base as time goes on. But it does make a difference.

I just finished a turn in which I had Velites charge some Levy skirmishers with the expectation that they would flee and clear a path for a big attack. Instead the skirmishers held and received the charge blocking me up. Its going to make a significant difference in how I was going to approach the coming Phalanx.

I knew there was a risk that the enemy skirmishers would hold but given how they fled every single other charge by my Velites, I thought I was in the clear. Clearly there is some random element to it but I still don't know whether that was a +EV play or not. It is one thing to make a play *knowing* that the outcome is likely but uncertain. It is an entirely different thing when the result isn't what you hoped for but you don't even know if that was a correct move with respect to the strategy you are pursuing on your part. And that's frustrating.

In a game with AI my noble cavalry charged a light horse on the edge of the map and both left the field, that happening in games so it is normal right?

Lancier wrote:In a game with AI my noble cavalry charged a light horse on the edge of the map and both left the field, that happening in games so it is normal right?

They must have routed the enemy light horse (who perhaps were fragmented) because they would not pursue evaders off the map.

Hmm wow strange then. Why they would disappear suddenly then? No idea really as i first time see something like that...

rbodleyscott wrote:

Lancier wrote:In a game with AI my noble cavalry charged a light horse on the edge of the map and both left the field, that happening in games so it is normal right?

They must have routed the enemy light horse (who perhaps were fragmented) because they would not pursue evaders off the map.

This probably sounds odd, and doesn't work for dedicated tournament players, but I suspect that "...gut feeling, past experience and guessing at the relative weight of factors involved..." perfectly sums up what most Ancient/Classical/Medieval generals actually felt on a battlefield. IMHO these sort of tactical level games should be as far removed from chess as is possible, while still keeping them inside the bounds of what little historical knowledge we have. (Clearly that same approach wouldn't be appropriate for a WWII strategic game.)

I think it's an enormous pity that uncontrolled charges were left out of this game, when we can read in the sources that such things did occur. It was a welcome feature of FoG I that a careful, meticulous player would try to line up his barbarians and then...whoops! half the b*ggers charged forward into the nearest enemy without any orders. Exactly what used to happen.

Speaking personally I do have some sympathy with the 'uncontrolled charge' lobby but it is a can of worms on a number of levels, and the original FoG notwithstanding many players would lambast such a feature

Uncontrolled charges would be an absolute no for me. There is already enough variance in the game.

Ancient warfare was all about variance. Its not chess.

Uncontrolled and unpredictable war bands and shock cavalry in FoG I were great. If costed appropriately, they make for an extremely interesting approach to the game; you absolutely must have an up front plan, deploy for it and then let the madness happen. In a top-down game we generally do not have god-like control and, for certain specific units, we absolutely should not.

However, as mentioned above, the costing/balance needs to be right.

Archaeologist1970 wrote:Ancient warfare was all about variance. Its not chess.

I can enjoy variance on the roulette wheel. If I play a strategy game, I want my decisions to carry significant weight with respect to the outcome I get.

keyth wrote:Uncontrolled and unpredictable war bands and shock cavalry in FoG I were great. If costed appropriately, they make for an extremely interesting approach to the game; you absolutely must have an up front plan, deploy for it and then let the madness happen. In a top-down game we generally do not have god-like control and, for certain specific units, we absolutely should not.

However, as mentioned above, the costing/balance needs to be right.

Yes, I agree with this.

stockwellpete wrote:

keyth wrote:Uncontrolled and unpredictable war bands and shock cavalry in FoG I were great. If costed appropriately, they make for an extremely interesting approach to the game; you absolutely must have an up front plan, deploy for it and then let the madness happen. In a top-down game we generally do not have god-like control and, for certain specific units, we absolutely should not.

However, as mentioned above, the costing/balance needs to be right.

Yes, I agree with this.

Sadly that sort of "love it or hate it" rule just provides fuel for haters on STEAM.

Yep, I can see why it was left out

[quote="MikeC_81"][quote="Archaeologist1970"]Ancient warfare was all about variance. Its not chess.[/quote]

I can enjoy variance on the roulette wheel. If I play a strategy game, I want my decisions to carry significant weight with respect to the outcome I get.[/quote]

This is a historical wargame.

There are a lot of dice rolls/ roulette wheels/ random numbers that impact on many of the outcomes.

That's the way I like it. It feels right according to my (biased) understanding of the military history involved.

Speaking more generally, there seems to be a vocal minority of critics who are trying make this historical wargame more "fair", "balanced", "even", "predictable" etc.

FoG2 is a gem. Don't ruin it by polishing it too much.

For me autoevasion is the weaker part of the game, you simple cant control it and is totally random... i dont understand why remove anarchy charges BUT rework autoevasion to made it worst than in first FOG... i want give my skirmishers the order i want (evade allways, never evade, evade using the AI).

Other point is the ability for heavy foot to catch skirmishers that evade them, totally crap, i see to much of this and made that skirmishers evade only 2 squares is if they evade they evade ALL the can, not evade half and be an easy prey.

Warbands+autoevade are for me very green yet.

For me FOG2 is semihistorical, in the moment you can place armies from diferent periods (wait see medieval VS ancient) balance has more value than historical unless you can add optional rules and armies from same period can play with specific rules while diferent periods armies can play in a more balance enviroment.

If you wargame on the tabletop, this is one of the first places I go to see how well they are written. So always comes down to roman legions vs warbands. Some make the legions unbreakable, some make the warbands out of control. Few get it right. It looks like FOG II is close but not there. The warbands should be feared by the romans (There is a reason they never conquered Germany). The romans however need to rely on superior training and tactics to win. In my prefect world of FOG II, I would do three things: add a fatigue rule (-5 to 10 POA per turn of continuous combat both sides, reset to zero by a round of rest), jack up the warbands a little more (make them scary), and make them auto charge randomly. Then you have a accurate portrayal of romans vs warbands.

Archaeologist1970 wrote:The warbands should be feared by the romans (There is a reason they never conquered Germany).

Probably more to do with economics than battlefield reasons. Germany just wasn't worth the effort, the rewards would not justify it. They happily defeated the "warband nations" of Gaul, but that was a more developed region than Germany so worthwhile.

nikgaukroger wrote:Probably more to do with economics than battlefield reasons. Germany just wasn't worth the effort, the rewards would not justify it. They happily defeated the "warband nations" of Gaul, but that was a more developed region than Germany so worthwhile.

Yes, I think that is a very big part of the answer. Also the terrain in Germany was more difficult and that would have raised the logistical costs of any attempted conquest.

Actually it had to do with Germany being a constant nuisance coming down into Northern Italy and raiding over and over again throughout history. Rome could never really put together enough war effort to clean them out and by the time to they start making some headway during Marcus Aurelius's reign, they start coming apart at the seams.

Archaeologist1970 wrote:If you wargame on the tabletop, this is one of the first places I go to see how well they are written. So always comes down to roman legions vs warbands. Some make the legions unbreakable, some make the warbands out of control. Few get it right. It looks like FOG II is close but not there. The warbands should be feared by the romans (There is a reason they never conquered Germany). The romans however need to rely on superior training and tactics to win. In my prefect world of FOG II, I would do three things: add a fatigue rule (-5 to 10 POA per turn of continuous combat both sides, reset to zero by a round of rest), jack up the warbands a little more (make them scary), and make them auto charge randomly. Then you have a accurate portrayal of romans vs warbands.

Some excellent ideas for a mod here, I would think. Might be worth putting them in the modders forum and see if anyone fancies trying to model them. I have done that with an idea about push backs. No takers yet, but I have had 50+ views so there might be a modder or two already thinking about it.