Slitherine

Posted: **Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:54 pm**

TheGrayMouser I meant the map centering though Morbio has an issue regarding the noise if the troops when moving. Maybe the it could be set that light troops not mounted, maybe even the medium foots with only light spears as surely are much more silent do not have that issue.

Tks for the reply.

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:02 am**

I'd like to see an option to allow another player to finish your game if you are away - would aid a lot with campaigns where a player being away for a week or 2 stalls the campaign. We all have lives outside of FoG & life just gets in the way sometimes.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:47 pm**

petergarnett wrote:I'd like to see an option to allow another player to finish your game if you are away - would aid a lot with campaigns where a player being away for a week or 2 stalls the campaign. We all have lives outside of FoG & life just gets in the way sometimes.

I like that - I could start a game and screw it up then arrange to be away so that Pantherboy could finish it for me

Posted: **Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:13 am**

I would like some sort of campaign structure. This could be a prearranged scenarios in a tree structure, or simply a log file with the surviving units at the end of battle so that they could be used for the next battle in a campaign...

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:35 am**

I'd like to have some improvements in the game log section (verbose mode).
The log is well structured but it's assolutely impossible to read it during the opponent turn!In my opinion, a "pause feature" (freely customizable by player in terms on/off) that stops the game after every turn would be a nice addiotion (hit SPACE or mouse button to GO ON in turn resolution).

Probably is a very easy and little development, so I hope to have it in a near future.

An other little suggestion: in the multiplayer mode, I'd like to view the situation about my last turn also in the opponent turn. At now, there is only a "Play" button deactivated.

Fosforo

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:08 pm**

When the game first came out I asked Richard Bodley-Scott if he had any plans to convert his 'PBM Umpire' campaign game to FOG. He said that the team were thinking about building a campaign module for FOG but it would be some time in the future. Is this still on the 'to do' list?

PBM Umpire http://www.byzant.demon.co.uk/pbmump.htm

Posted: **Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:42 am**

I think a campaign system is definitely the next step. It could really add to the experience and provide hours more of gaming fun!

It seems almost amiss for there not to be one.

Posted: **Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:07 am**

Hi

Something I've noticed recently with one of my opponents is that we're challenging each other with Hundred Years War armies that we made in the Digital Army Generator for Storm of Arrows, but when challenges are accepted the maps that we're playing our HYW battles on are desert maps. It doesn't really feel right, we want to feel as if we're fighting in France not the Holy Land, so in future (unless I'm missing it) please could we have an option for desert or temperate map types?

Thanks

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:55 pm**

Recheck the armor. Actually the game doesnt make any diference if you shoot with missile for example Armored or Protected Cavalry.

Tks

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:39 pm**

This may have likely been mentioned before, but:
1) Hotseat DAG battles.
2) DAG battles against the AI where the AI playes a DAG army created previously by the user.
3) DAG or multiplayer battels wher ethe user gets to chose wether he fights in green or arid.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:07 am**

Sabratha wrote:This may have likely been mentioned before, but:
1) Hotseat DAG battles.
2) DAG battles against the AI where the AI playes a DAG army created previously by the user.
3) DAG or multiplayer battels wher ethe user gets to chose wether he fights in green or arid.

Yes, all these points will be included in the submissions to Slitherine. Thanks.

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:53 am**

Sorry if I'm repeating stuff further up the thread, but I would like to see more flexibility with deployment of armies in multiplayer games, with for instance opportunities for flank marching and ambushes. I like the variety of maps in the game but lining up along each long side of the map area does get repetitive.

Posted: **Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:38 am**

Make me think that a way to chose the deployment area would be nice(ie to deploy closer to the center with at least 3-4 hex row next to the border forbidden to deployement).
A Way to implement floating map by having the map created from smaller map allowing for the battle to drift and not get stuck on an invisible wall.

Posted: **Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:27 pm**

mceochaidh wrote:Iain said "It's true that some things have changed because of the digital adaption. Casualty rates completely different because they are much more ganular on the tabletop. You either lose a base or not (representing about 25% of your battle group strength) when you get a hit. The chance of losing a base is 16.6% per hit. So 3 hits is a 50% chance.

"This means the digital version can much better deal with the gradual errosion of battlegroups. The % damage may be off but if we change it there could be serious balance issues. We can certainly have a look at it. Maybe we should make each category have less variance and not overlap. E.g. 1 hit should not go to a max % that is above 2 hits min %. We've already used randonmess to determine the hits so no need to use it again to determine the spread to such a large degree.

"I am very encouraged that Iain and his group would be willing to revisit the variability of combat results. The poll I conducted in the fall showed that 2 in 3 players responding were in favor of reducing the frequency of wild combat results. I have suggested a modest change in the form of a bell curve applied to the manpower loss tables. This approach would not change the overall percentage chances of receiving losses, but would reduce the frequency of the extreme percentages. In the example of receiving 2 hits, a manpower loss of 14% may only occur 1 time in twenty (5% of the time) instead of one time in ten (10% of the time). This would result in generally longer combats with battle lines staying intact longer. This change, in my opinion, would not materially affect game balance. The wild results would still occur, just not as frequently."

Short of something that complicated (and short of converting to a D20 system), how difficult would it be to implement this optional rule from the HPS/JTS games?

When the optional rule Alternative Calculation of combat results is chosen for fire or melee results ..., then the resulting casualty value is based on the average of two default casualty calculations. This produces values which are more likely to be in the midrange of the casualty interval rather than uniformly distributed.

[Speaking as a programmer:] I don't think it would be that difficult. If not a full-blown redoing of the combat results calculations, any chance (pun intended) of adding simple combat results averaging (optional rule) in the next FOG game update?

Slitherine

Best Ideas to Improve FOG PC

Re: Best Ideas to Improve FOG PC