Slitherine

lecrop wrote:I am talking about hardware incompatibilities, in relation to the requirements needed to run the new version, like RAM, graphics card, etc..

Ahh good point , I cant image the hardware requirements would change but NEwpro would need to comment on that one....
I find for such a simple game graphics wise, when I play battles with over 50 BPS per side there is a lotta lag when clicking on a unit and having the movenment shaded hexes appear. Hopefully the Unity sofware will optimise the movement/ los and fog of war algarithms.....

So what is actually still to be released on the current/old system?

1) Battle Pack (yes,this is coming out)

2) Wolves from the sea??????????

TheGrayMouser wrote:

lecrop wrote:I am talking about hardware incompatibilities, in relation to the requirements needed to run the new version, like RAM, graphics card, etc..

Ahh good point , I cant image the hardware requirements would change but NEwpro would need to comment on that one....
I find for such a simple game graphics wise, when I play battles with over 50 BPS per side there is a lotta lag when clicking on a unit and having the movenment shaded hexes appear. Hopefully the Unity sofware will optimise the movement/ los and fog of war algarithms.....

mmm I have a 7 y.o. laptop that still plays FOG and some HPS games, but nothing else. Still, I could invoke the "Christmas in July" rule. Whoo Hoo! A new lappie for me? Thanks, Santa.

For the new version of the game I would suggest:

1) given the fact that ancient battles substantially were linear battles and in order to recreate that distinct flavour inviting commanders to behave accordingly instead of playing in commando mode with units straggling everywhere without a logic, it would be nice to give a POA for units having support on both flank (thus rewarding the creation of a compact line)

2) camels shouldn't get disordered in soft sand

3) the possibility of commenting the challenges in order to specify against wich armies the player would like to play.

And thank's a lot for all the great work going on!

Will the new version feature a campaign mode, where users can string together scenarios? The lack of a campaign mode is the main reason I stopped playing the current FoG, so I really hope the new version addresses this. If a campaign mode is included, I know that I will make a few user-made scenarios for it, as I'm sure many other people will do.

The new version will contain only a very limited amount of new features, unless you would want to have the new version + the new addon sometimes during the winter/next year's spring.

The time we have to re-build from the scratch the whole FoG, which was launched in late autumn 2009 (and probably with another year in development time) and was updated and expanded for another two years, is just a few months. I'm sure you can understand how extremely hard it is, and what insanely amount of work it's needed to be done, to re-write only the current features in just about 5 months or so..

Although I would buy it to support and encourage the game. I am nut sure how much point there is in bringing out a battle pack if its just going to contain scenarios. With several hundred custom scenarios available for free over the net and more being added all the time, I am not quite sure what the incentive to purchase would be.

For what its worth I think it might be better to concentrate on getting the “Unity” version up and running so that all the changes and enhancements everybody wants will be much easier to add in at a later stage. Also it would be better to take a bit more time and get this right rather then rush it and then have to spend time undoing the bugs which are likely to creep in if things are done to quickly and not thoroughly tested. Also the more stable and bug free the Unity version is the easier it will be to enhance it later.

Obviously the intention is not to introduce any incompatibilities!

iainmcneil wrote:Obviously the intention is not to introduce any incompatibilities!

Thank you. Thinking in Unity, will allow different camera angles? maybe in the future? I'm thinking in view the miniatures from different positions end distances...

lecrop wrote:

iainmcneil wrote:Obviously the intention is not to introduce any incompatibilities!

Thank you. Thinking in Unity, will allow different camera angles? maybe in the future? I'm thinking in view the miniatures from different positions end distances...

I would be happy if they simply had the battfield elevations be "3d isometric" ( like almost every other turn based tactical game, instead of the odd hybred currently.)

[quote="Lysimachos"]For the new version of the game I would suggest:

1) given the fact that ancient battles substantially were linear battles and in order to recreate that distinct flavour inviting commanders to behave accordingly instead of playing in commando mode with units straggling everywhere without a logic, it would be nice to give a POA for units having support on both flank (thus rewarding the creation of a compact line)

quote]

I think another way of doing it would be simply to have an IMPACT on the flank be just as devastating as a rear charge ( ie auto loss of cohesion and then normal combat at an automatic double minus POA) This is how the TT game does it as well. Right now charging a BG on the flank whether engaged or not has zero benefit.
It certainly would encourage linear deployment methinks

TheGrayMouser wrote:I think another way of doing it would be simply to have an IMPACT on the flank be just as devastating as a rear charge ( ie auto loss of cohesion and then normal combat at an automatic double minus POA) This is how the TT game does it as well. Right now charging a BG on the flank whether engaged or not has zero benefit.
It certainly would encourage linear deployment methinks

Methinks you're right.

Maybe flank impact should be devastating but not so much as a rear one?
I completely agree that it has to be a difference between a frontal one.

cothyso wrote:The new version will contain only a very limited amount of new features, unless you would want to have the new version + the new addon sometimes during the winter/next year's spring.

The time we have to re-build from the scratch the whole FoG, which was launched in late autumn 2009 (and probably with another year in development time) and was updated and expanded for another two years, is just a few months. I'm sure you can understand how extremely hard it is, and what insanely amount of work it's needed to be done, to re-write only the current features in just about 5 months or so..

Personally I think it is definitely best to produce an initial version that essentially duplicates the current functionality without any significant changes beyond possibly minor big fixes. Once that is released and verified to work properly like the existing code base, it should provide a more stable code base going forward to make intentional changes and to eliminate inadvertent ones introduced by the re-write.

Something like changing how flank attacks are handled could have a major effect on play balance and should get substantial play testng to determine how it interacts with the use of a hex grid and single hex sized units. The TT rules essentially do treat flank charges and rear charges equivalently but BGs in the TT rules are much less maneuverable than in the digital version and also due to the use of multiple stand BGs, there are far fewer manuever units in the TT army than in a PC one, e.g. 10-15 units in a 800 point TT game versus 25-50 in a 400 point PC game which is roughly the equivalent. Even in the TT rules, the requirements for getting a flank charge are significantly stricter than for a rear charge.

Chris

WRT the quoted section above, I don't think the folks posting here are being unreasonable - we just want it new, better, with all the things we suggested and a whole lot more - and we want it last week!

May be a dumb question but do you anticipate any need for pre-Beta testers?

JJ

While waiting for the New Field of Glory digital re-write, I bought the TT rule book. It is a very impressive book and a ++ for those who own the digital version. It certainly aids in understanding what's under the hood in the digital game. It even gets me tempted to try miniatures.

As someone who wrote many of the early tutorials for Unity, is member number 4 (5?) on their forums, and has used it since pre-beta v1 days (when it was just Joe, Nich and David H in their Copenhagen basement) I say great move to Unity! Congrats.

I have a major problem with this.

C#?

How about a language that is not completely platform dependent? How will you write iOS versions or even Android Tablet (though obviously iPad is a massively bigger market) with C#? The game currently is available for the mac, and I think it would be silly to eliminate that market.

I can't speak to existing Real Basic code, but I think it is a highly questionable idea to write it in C#. If it can be redesigned from a cross platform perspective from the ground up, so that the only platform specific elements are the UI, perhaps the windows UI can be written in C# if someone chooses, but it is also able to be built using Objective C for Mac and iOS.

As far as what can be added or changed, I will let others decide that. I am happy enough with the game as is, though it does differ pretty dramatically from the table top version. I do think the game needs to be more open and cross platform in design than C# allows.

You can code in Unity in C#, Boo (a Pyhton language) or Javascript. It all gets compiled down anyway so it doesn't matter what language it's being written in. Unity creates absolutely cross-platform games that can be saved out as PC, Mac, iOS, Android, Wii, PS3 and Xbox from a single code base. It's absolutely the best cross-platform IDE for game development out there. http://unity3d.com/unity/publishing/ for details. It's a superb engine, and it's being used by some of the biggest names in the business. It's a superb decision.

I guess i missed that it was going to be done in unity, and just saw the clear statement that it was going to be done in C#. Though I generally associate Unity with 3D games, and not turn based games such as this, but hey, if it works, and does not completely change the nature of the original game, that's fine. I just would hate to see this redone from the perspective of windows only. As far as it being the "best" well I guess that is a matter of opinion, but it certainly is one of the more respected ones.