Field of Glory Road Map

[keithmartinsmith]

Impassible will block LOS but maybe not in time for 132. Keith

[Epicouros]

Impassible will block LOS but maybe not in time for 132. Keith

Good to hear!

[cothyso]

uhm. all impassable? like in, a gully or a ditch? that doesn't seem right

[batesmotel]

uhm. all impassable? like in, a gully or a ditch? that doesn't seem right

This is just the impassible terrain that looks like cliffs. Gullies and ditches aren't impassible although most types of water are except streams.

Chris

[cothyso]

I don't know exactly all the FoG terrain type specials, but obstructing LOS for the lower ones (which were impassable, but would not obstruct terrain, like a one-two hexes lakes, streams, gully, marshes, etc) seems kinda wrong.

[Epicouros]

I don't know exactly all the FoG terrain type specials, but obstructing LOS for the lower ones (which were impassable, but would not obstruct terrain, like a one-two hexes lakes, streams, gully, marshes, etc) seems kinda wrong.

Don't worry, I'm sure they only mean the cliff-like impassable terrain.
So it would finally become possible to hide your troops behind the cliffs. As it is now, they have exactly the same effect as a body of water (i.e. you can't enter the hexes, but you can see/shoot over them). It will be nice to see the difference between water and cliffs implemented.

[batesmotel]

There are multiple types of terrain that are impassible, but only the cliff like ones will list the terrain type as impassible if you hover over the hex.

Chris

[76mm]

I thought I saw in a thread somewhere that the devs were going to update/upgrade the lists to allow for larger armies (>800 pts) for more of the army lists?

When is this going to happen? I don't have a problem buying more modules for more army lists, more maps, etc., but am rather irritated that we can only build larger armies with a couple of amy lists. If the devs don't want to take the time to fix the lists, than they should remove the caps on the types of units. This post refer primarily to RoR, I have not tried to build large armies with SoA and have not bought IF yet...

[TheGrayMouser]

I thought I saw in a thread somewhere that the devs were going to update/upgrade the lists to allow for larger armies (>800 pts) for more of the army lists?

When is this going to happen? I don't have a problem buying more modules for more army lists, more maps, etc., but am rather irritated that we can only build larger armies with a couple of amy lists. If the devs don't want to take the time to fix the lists, than they should remove the caps on the types of units. This post refer primarily to RoR, I have not tried to build large armies with SoA and have not bought IF yet...

An additional problem is that even if you can buy close to 1000 ap's, there is no longer any variety as you literally bought everything (including the camp and arillery) and maxed out leaders/leader quality
This of course kills any idea of custom/personalised lists for larger point battles.....

I dont think just removing the caps is doable though, armies wouldnt even resemble what their list is supposed to look like like in proportions (ie a Selucid army with 15 elite cavalry and 50 thuropheroi)

What is really needed is a cap break point for every 100 ap's, of course the amount of work to do it likly means it wont happen... My guess is the caps/lists were optimised maybe for 4000-600 ap armies?

[Xiggy]

IF has some armies that have next to nothing past 600 points. The only option I can think of if for anything over 600 points just double everything. I am not sure how easy that is for the dev's to do.

[claymore58]

A good solution would be to have 2 lists for each army. The current ones and new lists for Army size 800 and above. That way the large armies are more customizable.

[76mm]

just doubling the caps for armies of 800 pts or bigger would be a good start, and simple to do. They can fine tune it later if they want. As others have pointed out, even at 800 pts with the few armies that you can create that large, there is little variety (and thus no surprises) because you're pretty much maxed out.

[TimW]

A good solution would be to have 2 lists for each army. The current ones and new lists for Army size 800 and above.

I suppose with any society there comes a point where its army is no longer customisable because it's got to the point it's turning out everything its got...

There's obviously a need to keep armies close to the troop types and proportions their historical model used. Would simply doubling the maxima and minima for armies over a given figure (say 600 or 800points) do the trick? Or would it lead to too many anomalies?

[Blathergut]

Proportions are fine. But you can have the same proportions, if the lists are done correctly, in a 400pt army and a 1000pt army. The game should be able to handle this. Some of the armies can barely squeak 600pts!

If players want to run large battles, the game system should be able to handle that. Let's hope it eventually does. Personally, I like 400-600 pt battles. But there seems to be quite a few on here who would like to see larger ones.

[TheGrayMouser]

Those are some good points Tim, but i think the rational behind the request is to just allow players to be able to use all lists at 800-1000 points and still have the ability to customize your selections.

Im sure there would likly be many anomalies, but I doudt Slitherine has the time to rebalance all the lists based on differing AP levels

[Morbio]

For information on the game, screenshots or to buy it go to http://slitherine.com/games/fog_pc

We wanted to keep you up to date on planned changes and additions to the Field of Glory system. We are not setting dates to avoid any disappointment.

Planned for version 1.2.7
1) Add: Apple Mac editions of Field of Glory, Rise of Rome and Storm of Arrows.
2) Add: In game ‘update’ system. There should be no more requirements for patches. The system can now check for the latest update and download and install it automatically.
3) Change: The multi-player system will be amended to only allow official DAG army lists to be used.
4) Change: The anarchy scores required to pass a CMT test to be reduced by one. This effectively reduces the change of anarchy charges.
5) Bug: Units should not take part in an anarchy charge if it will disorganise them.
6) Bug: Error in Anglo Irish list, some LB did not have stakes.
7) Change: Put ‘open’ rather than ‘pass worded’ challenges to the top of the accept a challenge list in the DAG.
9) Bug: Sometimes the end game/end turn sequence gives cannot move message.
9) Add: Review and add user supplied battles.
10) Change: When listing your outstanding challenges your own army name and details should not be hidden.
11) Change: How replay reveals the line of sight. The aim is to allow a front line to move forwards and leave the back line obscured.
12) Change: Allow players to select less than the nominated number of points in DAG batttles to allow mismatched army sizes to assit in campaign games.
13) Change: The AI to select an army to the size of the target points, not the number chosen by the player. This allows the player to take less points in to a battle and fight handicapped.
14) Change: Baggage to be 10% of the army points, minimum 2.
15) Change: Add the army pack version numbers to the splash display. This will make it obvious when you have successfully installed an army pack.


Planned for Immortal Fire
1) Add: All armies as per the printed book.
2) Add: New maps for DAG games.
3) Add: Double moves. Battle groups at distance ‘x’ from an enemy to be able to move further than normal.
4) Change: Allow a player to continue using unmoved movement points after moving a unit.
5) Add: Duplicate play: A single challenge to be to play as both sides in an historical battle and the overall win to come from combining the results of both battles. This allows unbalanced games to be extremely interesting.
6) Change: Better looking general’s flags.


Planned for Sword and Scimitars
1) Add: All armies as per the printed book.
2) Add: Soft sand terrain.
3) Add: Evade options: A player can set a battlegroups aggression level. High aggression means they will not evade. Low aggression means they will always evade. Medium means they will evade if the charger has better combat odds.

Planned for future revisions with no specific date allocated
1) Add: Themed Armies: As per the printed books themed armies from other books can be used in a specific book DAG challenge.
2) Add: Village terrain.
3) Add: Variable line of sight to represent mist, fog, rain and time of day.
4) Change: Line of sight. Light foot in most terrain and all in woods would remain hidden from the enemy until they move, shoot or the enemy moves with two hexes.
5) Add: List feature to open a screen to summarise the status of all the battle groups in an army. This willbe useful for campaign games to get detailed results of a battle.
6) Add: Variable sized maps for DAG battles. This takes away the certainty of the size of the battle area.
7) Review: Information displayed in the challenge summary window.
9) Change: Units contacted by pursuers in their rear will reduce their cohesion level as per normal rear charges.
10) Review: Scenario filters and sort options.
11) Review: Add a method for players to communicate outside of the current game turn e.g. to chat about a completed game.
12) Add: Detailed information down to best player by DAG army or historical battle as either side.
13) Add: Cancel private challenge button.
14) Add: Hot seat DAG games.
15) Add: Ability to cut and paste in the scenario creator.
16) Add: Prompt to players on end game turn if there are still units to move.
17) Add: Allow players to add their own custom general’s flags.
19) Add: 6 sided palisades.
19) Add: Palisades to the scenario creator.
20) Add: Baggage camps to the scenario creator.
21) Add: Store the game to enable replay of the whole game.


Planned A.I. Changes
These will be included as testing of them is completed.

1) Only charge when the chances of victory are high.
2) Shooters to only charge when almost sure of victory.
3) When charging usually select the target with the one with the most chance of winning.
4) When in a melee usually select the target with the one with the most chance of winning.
5) When shooting usually select the target with the one with the most chance of causing a cohesion test.
6) Usually charge where you can reduce an enemy’s cohesion.
7) Fragmented and poor units need to be less aggressive.
9) Review: Deployment logic.

Iain: Sorry to keep nagging on this one, but could you review and update the list above? A lot of what's listed has now been delivered and I'm sure that you have a more detailed plan for the items listed Swords and Scimitars and beyond. I also suspect there may be a few new items to go on the roadmap too.

Thanks,
Morbio

[CaptainHuge]

What is wrong with the code behind the numbers allowed in an army work on percentages of the total instead of absolute numbers? Present the numbers like they are to the user, but the code that calculates what is allowed should be worked out as a percentage of the total. That way whether an army is 300 points or 1000 points it would still use the same ratios.

Other than changing the software in the DAG, is there some obvious problem with this that I am missing?

[claymore58]

Good point, CaptainHuge (great alias, BTW). In theory % ages should work fine. There may have to be a limit on the number of very special troop types, but otherwise should be fine.

[76mm]

Good point, CaptainHuge (great alias, BTW). In theory % ages should work fine. There may have to be a limit on the number of very special troop types, but otherwise should be fine.

I agree that percentages would work fine, but am not sure that I understand this concern about "anomalies" and "very special troop types".

First, the troop numbers in this game are completely arbitary and irrelevant, so why does it matter if Kingdom X could only crank out 1,259 cataphracts, but you can create twice, or three times that in a DAG army--it is the proportions which matter, not the numbers (ie, the numbers are irrelevant, so you can simply imagine that each BG consists of 1/2 or 1/3 as many troops).

Second, the DAG is intended to create fictional battles, so what is the hang up on many troops a particular kingdom could actually produce?

The points above are not intended as an argument to remove all caps, which would allow you to create a heavy-cav based Roman army, or pike-based Parthian army--there is not much point in that I believe. I just don't understand arguments such as "Gee, Epirus could only produce x troops, why should you be able to create an army of more than 500 pts?"

[kme37158]

It would be nice to include cities or buildings into the game. How about a fort of castle assault with options for scaling ladders etc