Slitherine

Scutarii wrote:A little question... is possible in game have an option to replace one the unit flag by a unit type icon??? all units have at least 2 flags... with one to know nation you can use 2nd to made easier know if is a cavalry unit or an infantry unit with no pikes... you know in flag you have the type icon (infantry, cavalry, arty)+special capabilities icons (shot, melee...) and even the unit quality using a colour in the flag, the idea is you dont need click over every unit to have the info... you only need see the battlefield to know what you face.

All good ideas. We will also be using the flag icons above the units to indicate morale state and losses.

First the beautiful Commander-Panzer Corps hybrid of Order of Battle, and now FOG and BA? Slith you might make me bankrupt soon....

Great, last years i like game that minimize clicfestival hehehe.

Ummm maybe is time to open a specific section in the forum for game no???

PD: the interest and expectation around game is very high

EDIT: something i dont remember ask, casualties... are like in FOG a % (in FOG number of soldiers are cosmetic) or here we can see them more based in soldiers??? thanks.

Hi

Really excited to hear about this game. Have those working on the scenarios for the initial 30 Years War release got access to William Guthrie's 3 Volume military history of the 30 Years War, ie Battles of the Thirty Years War: From White Mountain to Nordlingen, 1618-1635, The Later Thirty Years War: From the Battle of Wittstock to the Treaty of Westphalia & Actions of the Thirty Years War ?

These give very detailed accounts of a large number of battles, (pretty well all the major ones and many smaller actions) included in these are deployment sketch maps and detailed orders of battle. The orders of Battle give full details of regimental titles in virtually all cases so you might want to think about setting these up in the database so that the historical battles that ship with the game have them in from the start.

All the best
Ian

Hoplite1963 wrote: The orders of Battle give full details of regimental titles in virtually all cases so you might want to think about setting these up in the database so that the historical battles that ship with the game have them in from the start.

I absolutely second that!

---

Great to hear that a demo is planned! Wise decision ...

Hoplite1963 wrote: Really excited to hear about this game. Have those working on the scenarios for the initial 30 Years War release got access to William Guthrie's 3 Volume military history of the 30 Years War, ie Battles of the Thirty Years War: From White Mountain to Nordlingen, 1618-1635, The Later Thirty Years War: From the Battle of Wittstock to the Treaty of Westphalia & Actions of the Thirty Years War ?

Yes to the first 2.

We will see about acquiring the 3rd, although the initial release concentrates on the central theatre + Rocroi

are there any provisions for control and command? or do players do pretty much what they want as in fog?

fogman wrote:are there any provisions for control and command? or do players do pretty much what they want as in fog?

We did not want to overcomplicate the game, so all units can move as the player wishes within the limits of the unit's ability.

However, the player has less control over some things than in tabletop FOG because the computer decides such things as when a light unit evades a charge, when pursuers charge fresh enemy, and when units break off from close combat.

Also, as in FOG, pursuing units cannot be controlled until they stop pursuing (or return to the map if they pursued off it), and routing units not at all.

The ZOC restrictions are somewhat different to FOG and will often prevent a player from charging an enemy unit that he would like his unit to charge if the unit is more concerned about a different enemy unit. In particular, a unit cannot ignore an enemy unit 2 tiles away directly to its front - which makes chequerboard formations work well.

Incidentally (even aside from the period differences) the game plays more similarly to tabletop FOGR than to FOGPC. One of the reasons for using the BA STUB engine was to avoid the use of hexagons.

Scutarii wrote:EDIT: something i dont remember ask, casualties... are like in FOG a % (in FOG number of soldiers are cosmetic) or here we can see them more based in soldiers??? thanks.

Entirely based on soldiers, not at all cosmetic.

Thanks for the info.

Then is like FOG where commanders are not attached to certain formations... well, is not perfect but if it works... maybe i am more interested in how works move units groups, in FOG i prefer move units one by one, i expect in new engine you can give more group units.

Great know that casualties are based in soldiers not in %, i find this in FOG excesive... rigid.

I like the demo idea but i am more interested in Beta, i remember de good all times when i was in beta teams in FOG army packs, any info about this??? we can expect beta??? and if is yes... maybe in summer???

Thanks.

Scutarii wrote:Then is like FOG where commanders are not attached to certain formations... well, is not perfect but if it works... maybe i am more interested in how works move units groups, in FOG i prefer move units one by one, i expect in new engine you can give more group units.

We are sticking with individual unit moves.

we can expect beta??? and if is yes... maybe in summer???

Beta will commence when the graphics and UI are more or less completed. We can't currently give a date on this. The game code (including AI) and scenarios are already pretty much complete.

Hi
I am very interested in the game. I don´t know about the tabletop game rules, so I was wondering if the overall rules are based on Michael Roberts ideas of military revolution during the period or if more up to date research has been considered. I reacall a tabletop game in which Swedish brigades were just unbeatable while other units of the period, particularly spanish tecrios, were terribly misrepresented by something approacging 16th century formations as if there was no evolution since then.

I see, thanks for the info, i expect you can find a good solution to group moves.

Well, for beta waiting i only can say that is the wargamer penitence to have a new toy hehehe.

Good luck in your work, you attract a lot if interest with the game.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scutarii wrote:EDIT: something i dont remember ask, casualties... are like in FOG a % (in FOG number of soldiers are cosmetic) or here we can see them more based in soldiers??? thanks.

Entirely based on soldiers, not at all cosmetic.

Perfect!

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scutarii wrote:EDIT: something i dont remember ask, casualties... are like in FOG a % (in FOG number of soldiers are cosmetic) or here we can see them more based in soldiers??? thanks.

Entirely based on soldiers, not at all cosmetic.

Is there a visual representation of losses to the on-map units? Like removing a "stand" of soldiers at a certain point?

Thanks for answering questions. The game sounds amazing so far.

Benpark wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scutarii wrote:EDIT: something i dont remember ask, casualties... are like in FOG a % (in FOG number of soldiers are cosmetic) or here we can see them more based in soldiers??? thanks.

Entirely based on soldiers, not at all cosmetic.

Is there a visual representation of losses to the on-map units? Like removing a "stand" of soldiers at a certain point?

The units remain the same, but the flag icon over their heads will become progressively tattered.

Aryaman wrote:Hi
I am very interested in the game. I don´t know about the tabletop game rules, so I was wondering if the overall rules are based on Michael Roberts ideas of military revolution during the period or if more up to date research has been considered. I reacall a tabletop game in which Swedish brigades were just unbeatable while other units of the period, particularly spanish tecrios, were terribly misrepresented by something approacging 16th century formations as if there was no evolution since then.

Tercios evolved from the old-fashioned large units to smaller ones during the course of the war. The Catholic League and Spanish were still using battalions of up to 2,400 men in the earlier part of the war, though the Imperial army reduced to battalions of around 1,000 fairly early on. After 1st Breitenfeld the League seems to have abandoned the large battalions too. The Spanish still had some quite large battalions (up to 1900 men) at Nordlingen, but the Tercios Viejos at Rocroi were down to about 1250 men. Meanwhile the 2nd and 3rd echelon battalions at Rocroi were only circa 500 men. So even at Rocroi, the Spanish tercios need to be differentiated from their other battalions. But as you say, they are not the huge battalions of the 16th century.

Swedish brigades have their advantages (in the game) from their Salvo capability but are far from invincible.

Aryaman wrote:I reacall a tabletop game in which Swedish brigades were just unbeatable while other units of the period, particularly spanish tecrios, were terribly misrepresented by something approacging 16th century formations as if there was no evolution since then.

The evolution from the iconic early tercio to the more linear later form is represented nicely in the tabletop rules so I would expect that to be reflected in at least as much detail in a PC game (especially since it is easy to put more under the hood). In FOGR the army of the early 1630s can be high quality but lead shot makes no distinction and it comes down to good tactics and effective use of firepower and position.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Aryaman wrote:Hi
I am very interested in the game. I don´t know about the tabletop game rules, so I was wondering if the overall rules are based on Michael Roberts ideas of military revolution during the period or if more up to date research has been considered. I reacall a tabletop game in which Swedish brigades were just unbeatable while other units of the period, particularly spanish tecrios, were terribly misrepresented by something approacging 16th century formations as if there was no evolution since then.

Tercios evolved from the old-fashioned large units to smaller ones during the course of the war. The Catholic League and Spanish were still using battalions of up to 2,400 men in the earlier part of the war, though the Imperial army reduced to battalions of around 1,000 fairly early on. After 1st Breitenfeld the League seems to have abandoned the large battalions too. The Spanish still had some quite large battalions (up to 1900 men) at Nordlingen, but the Tercios Viejos at Rocroi were down to about 1250 men. Meanwhile the 2nd and 3rd echelon battalions at Rocroi were only circa 500 men. So even at Rocroi, the Spanish tercios need to be differentiated from their other battalions. But as you say, they are not the huge battalions of the 16th century.

Swedish brigades have their advantages (in the game) from their Salvo capability but are far from invincible.

Well, that is one of the misrepresentations I was talking about, Tercios were not like the contemporary regiments of othr nations, they were not combat units raised with a given number of companies, they were rather permanent commands with a variable number of companies attached for particular missions, so that there are instances of a tercio deploying as few as 7 companies or as many as 25. Spanish companies were detached from a te4rcio and attched to another very freely, in that regard tercios were much more flexible structures than any contemporary ones.
I imagine that flexibility is difficult to portray in a game, there are other issues particular to tercios, like the training or the appointment of commanders, after all tercios were the elite infantry of the period for some reason, and even the vaunted swedish brigade met their demise facing the tercios at Nordlingen.

Aryaman wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Aryaman wrote:Hi
I am very interested in the game. I don´t know about the tabletop game rules, so I was wondering if the overall rules are based on Michael Roberts ideas of military revolution during the period or if more up to date research has been considered. I reacall a tabletop game in which Swedish brigades were just unbeatable while other units of the period, particularly spanish tecrios, were terribly misrepresented by something approacging 16th century formations as if there was no evolution since then.

Tercios evolved from the old-fashioned large units to smaller ones during the course of the war. The Catholic League and Spanish were still using battalions of up to 2,400 men in the earlier part of the war, though the Imperial army reduced to battalions of around 1,000 fairly early on. After 1st Breitenfeld the League seems to have abandoned the large battalions too. The Spanish still had some quite large battalions (up to 1900 men) at Nordlingen, but the Tercios Viejos at Rocroi were down to about 1250 men. Meanwhile the 2nd and 3rd echelon battalions at Rocroi were only circa 500 men. So even at Rocroi, the Spanish tercios need to be differentiated from their other battalions. But as you say, they are not the huge battalions of the 16th century.

Swedish brigades have their advantages (in the game) from their Salvo capability but are far from invincible.

Well, that is one of the misrepresentations I was talking about, Tercios were not like the contemporary regiments of othr nations, they were not combat units raised with a given number of companies, they were rather permanent commands with a variable number of companies attached for particular missions, so that there are instances of a tercio deploying as few as 7 companies or as many as 25. Spanish companies were detached from a te4rcio and attched to another very freely, in that regard tercios were much more flexible structures than any contemporary ones.
I imagine that flexibility is difficult to portray in a game, there are other issues particular to tercios, like the training or the appointment of commanders, after all tercios were the elite infantry of the period for some reason, and even the vaunted swedish brigade met their demise facing the tercios at Nordlingen.

I was talking about their deployed battalion strength at Nordlingen and Rocroi. No doubt in other circumstances they would deploy differently, and in such a scenario they would be represented differently in the game. The point I was making is precisely that a one-size-fits-all representation is not used in the game.