Tides of Conquest campaign tool - new version with Bronze Age scenarios and icons out April 21 2023

[Ironclad]

I have only just discovered your TOC single player Punic Wars in the AAR section. Amazing omission, missing this, when I'm really interested in TOC and am a regular visitor to the FOG 2 forums but clearly not to the AARs. Just another example that you can't post too many threads on something new to publicise it to viewing players.

[anthonykevinluke]

Hi Nijis,

just downloaded your excellent looking Mod but have struck an unusual problem. I have WINRAR and successfully downloaded the files and got the three correct files - application, FOG campaign and setup (little black disc symbol). When I click on setup it 'spins' for a while and then comes up with an error that states: "Windows cannot access the specific device, path or file. You may not have the appropriate permissions to access the item." I am on a 64 bit WIN 10 system and everything seems to be downloaded correctly (tried to open as Administrator but no joy with that either) ..... Any ideas, or from anyone out there???

[Nijis]

Hi Anthony,

Very sorry about that. I haven't heard of that error before, so I'm not sure exactly what it could be.

Microsoft has the following advice on their site. Have you tried this?
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/hel ... r-when-you

Scrolling to the end of this, the one that might be most relevant is the blocking and antivirus one. Because it's a fairly new file, it tends to trigger antivirus software.

Steve

[anthonykevinluke]

Ok thanks mate. I'll give it a try.

Cheers,

AKL

[anthonykevinluke]

Nijis,

Again many thanks for the advice as I can now access the file and it seems to open up in a resonable manner. I have read the extensive new 'read me' and would like to ask a couple of questions if I may (please note that I have not yet attempted a game, just read the info).

. Can the game be played as a single player against the AI without an end date (which scenario)? i.e. try to 'conquer' the world? I note the solo campaign (single player challenge) by your comments has a finite time limit.

. Can the single player 220BC scenario be played through without a time limit and still fight battles in FOG?

. If this is not possible at the moment are you considering creating a scenario to allow players to do this?

Regardless, you have done a great job with this; congratulations.

Courage,

AKL

[TimDee58]

I'm not sure if this is covered elsewhere but does the size of the army used in an action depend upon the action being undertaken?

I'm thinking (and forgive me if i dont use the right terms)

A raid should be with a very small force
A full scale invasion with a very large force

and incremental steps between those two extremes.

Ive used the program just once and thoroughly enjoyed it, I just, in hindsight, couldnt recall any mention of army size, just difficulty level.

Anyway, well done, a brilliant tool. 10/10 from me!

[Ironclad]

Usually 1200 points regardless of action chosen. The manual states:

It's assumed that most games will be 1200-point Open Battles. However, if they want to, players can agree to try something else. For example, if one side has mostly light horse then the players may want to try Escort Baggage Train. If you do this, then be sure to report a rout level for the lose that is either 60% or at least 25 points higher than the winner's. Otherwise, the game will treat the battle as a tie.

[Nijis]

Thanks for the kind words, and glad to hear people are enjoying it!

. Can the game be played as a single player against the AI without an end date (which scenario)? i.e. try to 'conquer' the world? I note the solo campaign (single player challenge) by your comments has a finite time limit.

. Can the single player 220BC scenario be played through without a time limit and still fight battles in FOG?

. If this is not possible at the moment are you considering creating a scenario to allow players to do this?

The answer to all three of these is yes - with a qualification. Once your leader dies you fast-forward 30 years. The AI may do lots of silly things in this time period and this is by design. Big empires are also harder to run than smaller empires. It represents feckless heirs, political infighting, etc. Then after 30 years you get to play a visionary leader who tries to restore your lost glory and right the ship of state, or, if it's all such a mess you don't want to bother, a rising realm can be the successor.

I think the incentives work best this way and you get a realistic rise/apogee/decline arc. However, it might be frustrating, so I'd like to hear feedback. I can disable the "lost generation" effect or find some other mechanism if necessary.

Right now big empires are probably too fragile and so it would be pretty challenging to maintain Roman rule over the Mediterranean for several centuries.

My goal for the singleplayer campaign is to make it so that, in theory, you can play from 750 BC to 1500 CE not necessarily as one realm but as a series of pivotal leaders, sometimes monarchs and sometimes subordinate generals who still have a political agenda - Cyrus, Pericles, Alexander, Ashoka, Liu Bang, Caesar, Constantine, Stilicho, Khalid Ibn Walid, Charlemagne, etc. Your legacy would in that case be felt not just in the fortunes of a single realm or dynasty but in institutions that last through the ages. The game would encourage you but not require you to play in a couple different areas of the map - ie, the "generation gap" might be longer if you stick to a single region, for balance purposes, so that a mostly-player-run realm doesn't have it too easy. Still working on this, though!

It's assumed that most games will be 1200-point Open Battles. However, if they want to, players can agree to try something else.

That's right - and if you're playing solitaire, feel free to play whatever level and mode you think are appropriate. I haven't really tested all the non-open-battle modes, so I don't know if the scores give the right results in terms of casualties, but I don't think they would be off by too much.

Also, army lists will update as time goes by but there are sometimes odd results, so solo players should feel free to switch army lists as they like.

A raid should be with a very small force
A full scale invasion with a very large force

This would be true in many cases. However, the resources assigned in the game don't represent as much the size of troops committed as the length of time they're going to be there - ie for sieges, garrisoning, pacification, settling veterans, etc. A raid is any campaign where the attacker isn't going to stick around. So, the Celtic raids on Italy during the Roman republic which involved tens of thousands of troops, and in one case sacked Rome, qualify as a "raid" in game terms. Smaller raids, like Anglo-Scottish border warfare, are reflected in armies draining resources from neighboring trade routes.

The battles are an abstract way of handling a campaign. I find that sometimes large battles, particularly if there are a lot of cavalry and light troops, dissolve into a multiple asymmetrical clashes all over the map that actually feel a lot like guerrilla warfare. But certainly players should do whatever battle they think is appropriate!

[Ironclad]

Still having problems trying to save the campaign screen when battle details are showing. Mentioned this a while back and you advised me this was possible and when I tried it again it worked. However at some stage it stopped working and despite re-installing a couple of times (v0.33) and restarting the single player scenario, everytime this battle screen fails to reload when the current campaign save has been used. Clicking load on the save just closes the app.

[Nijis]

Thanks for that. Can you send me the campaign save file that you're using? I can try to load it to see what might be happening.

[jomni]

Interesting concept on leader’s perspective and lifespan. But I agree that it is also a good idea to keep playing the chosen faction in continuity (I.e. ruling family or dynasty like in Crusader Kings).

Regarding suggested difficulty levels, do you think it’s ok to just keep playing on a constant level instead of using the suggested one in Single Player Challenge?

What about playing using Single Player Test mode. Is it more sandbox?

[Ironclad]

The apps cleverer than that! You don't play at the same difficulty level in every single player battle. Instead the app changes the difficulty level depending on circumstances. In single player so far I've fought battles at difficulty level 2, 3 or 4 and I think if very successful you may be fighting at an even higher level at times. For example after winning early on at difficulty 2 and then pursuing more conquest, the level changed to 3 but the enemy tried to evade, choosing to seek battle I was then faced with the difficulty upping to level 4. Another time when moving back to defend a core province the difficulty dropped to 2. Great stuff.

[Nijis]

Regarding suggested difficulty levels, do you think it’s ok to just keep playing on a constant level instead of using the suggested one in Single Player Challenge?

As Ironclad said it will scale up. You're supposed to be able to easily win the first few battles in each lifetime, and in this case the idea is to keep your casualties really low. But you can decide on a minimum difficulty level or any other house rules you want, and I think nothing should go very wrong.

If you want to do a complete "house rules" game, or a Total War-style campaign where you play all your realm's armies and don't worry about leader lifetimes, then you could do the Gamemaster/Multiplayer mode and randomly generate results in battles that your realm isn't fighting (ie, flip a coin, then loser takes 60% casualties and low roll has (1d6 * 10 - 5)%). This would be a bit cumbersome though.

For upcoming versions I can try in the future to add a "standard strategy" mode, without leader lifetimes and the scaling difficulty. You play on whatever difficulty you want and just enter results.

Singleplayer Test currently doesn't enter battle results. It's designed to play a lot of turns very quickly to test the system.

[jomni]

If levelling is situational then I guess I’ll let it be.
As long as there is still life and a chance to get back after a lost battle...

[anthonykevinluke]

Hi Nijis,

I like and would appreciate having a 'standard strategy' mode. For your consideration.

Cheers,

AKL

[Nijis]

I will add a "standard strategy" mode to my list for 0.4, then! It shouldn't be too difficult.

[anthonykevinluke]

Awesome, thank you for your excellent work. Looking forward to V0.4.

Courage,

AKL

[VektorT]

Man, what you doing is simply unbelievably awesome! I`m particulary interested in the single player aspect that you showed on another topic and there is something I would like to ask... does the AI armies also carry loses from battles and need to replenish like the player? If I keep beating an AI army and faction will their forces grow thinner both from casualties and from lack of resources to recruit more? What bothered me most about vanilla campaign is that AI is always fighting at 100% strenght (even more on higher difficulties) and doesn`t matter how bad I beat them in battle they always comes back with a full fledged force in the next one both in numbers and in higher cost troops quality.

[rbodleyscott]

Man, what you doing is simply unbelievably awesome! I`m particulary interested in the single player aspect that you showed on another topic and there is something I would like to ask... does the AI armies also carry loses from battles and need to replenish like the player? If I keep beating an AI army and faction will their forces grow thinner both from casualties and from lack of resources to recruit more? What bothered me most about vanilla campaign is that AI is always fighting at 100% strenght (even more on higher difficulties) and doesn`t matter how bad I beat them in battle they always comes back with a full fledged force in the next one both in numbers and in higher cost troops quality.

That is by design, of course, otherwise the battles would be a walkover, and not really worth playing. The vanilla campaigns are primarily designed to be a vehicle for interesting connected battles, not a strict simulation of strategic reality.

Having said that, in historical wars, until the situation came to mopping up operations, the battles usually were fairly evenly matched, even after one side had suffered some defeats, because the defending side would not usually offer battle again until it had managed to raise adequate forces. If they could not do so they usually accepted peace terms rather than continuing the war.

[Nijis]

I`m particulary interested in the single player aspect that you showed on another topic and there is something I would like to ask... does the AI armies also carry loses from battles and need to replenish like the player? If I keep beating an AI army and faction will their forces grow thinner both from casualties and from lack of resources to recruit more?

Thanks for the kind words!

So, I changed the system where the player carries over losses, to make the singleplayer and multiplayer games more alike. Currently, both player and non-player replenish automatically - but it costs them to do so.

This is because
1) A turn is two years, so most armies would have lots of time to induct new recruits
2) As Richard says above, armies could easily just avoid battle, if they were prepared to accept the strategic consequences
3) Armies were very often the same size because they could only carry a few weeks' worth of supplies and a tract of countryside could only sustain so many troops. (Cavalry would have a bigger logistical footprint, in this case, because horses eat more, even when they can supplement by grazing.)

So, if you really whip an enemy, they won't come back with a smaller army, but they might field an army at all. This means 1) they won't attack you, and 2) if you attack them, you'll probably end up fighting their provincial garrison rather than a field army, which means you conquer a province (or loot it, or whatever) with up to 60% casualties on your side as opposed to needing 35%.

Also with each victory, the player's reputation goes up. If you're Hannibal after Cannae, then Rome won't fight you at all unless the odds are very much in their favor. The downside is their forces might capitulate without a fight.

I want every battle to be a challenge, if possible, which in an interesting way is historical. Ie, Caesar's career - he kept accepting battle at worse and worse odds so that he could move quickly and strike hard. His "boss fight" was at Munda, when he showed up in Spain with fewer legions than his opponents, even though the Pompeiians were the last hold-outs and Caesar controlled the Mediterranean from Italy to Egypt.