Slitherine

Would you ignore just under five hundred extremely angry looking guys wearing towels instead of armour and extremely nasty looking swords? Hovering just within sprinting distance of you? While you are wearing linen armour and armed with what amounts at short range to a giant washing pole? :p

But are the angry guys fast enough to catch cavalry? From a realism viewpoint a case could be made that infantry ZOCs are too "sticky" vs. cavalry.

Now balance is another story. I think it´s probably intentional that low-quality units are slightly more cost effective, or people would perhaps field only elite armies.

I just intuitively expect a Hellenistic army to roll over tribesmen like a train rolls over a pedestrian. I have to work hard to remind myself *every* *single* *turn* that it ain´t (necessarily) so.

sIg3b wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:52 pm III. Even the lowliest Irregulars are armed with Stasis Field Generators that can trap your best units in a Red ZOC and paralyze them. Beware!

IV. But the moment a unit is engaged, its Stasis Field Generators cease working and the prisoners are released. Beware!

I'm pretty sure that ZoCs actually abstractly represent a unit spread out to defend multiple tiles. So you have to attack them to be able to move through.

I might be wrong though.

Yaitz331 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:35 pm I'm pretty sure that ZoCs actually abstractly represent a unit spread out to defend multiple tiles. So you have to attack them to be able to move through.

I might be wrong though.

I don´t think so; this is not an operational-level game: The unit is where you see it.

ZOCs represent a threat level; in the case of Inf ZOCs against Cav a bit exaggerated imo.

Cataphracts are a waste of purchase points against a crossbow army (Chinese).

IIrc, medieval Knights complained about crossbows, too, when they became the rage in Europe. Can´t have a commoner simply shoot a Knight from his horse!

51. if your unit is subject to the primary ZOC of two enemy units. One ZOC is ignored allowing a pinned unit the possibility of an extraordinary escape...Dont waste moves pinning with multiple ZOC.

mst007 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:29 pm 2) Firing up a PBEM turn before work is not always a great idea, it can make you late for work

AMEN, brother.

Indeed!

That's why you do it after you get to work:)

49. Make sure that that stream running down one side of the battlefield can be crossed before you put any troops on the other side of it

Opening FoG to check on something "real quick" and five hours later I am wondering how a simple query turned into a marathon session.

Mord

Ah, a great thread ... first time I have seen it.

No one has said ...

Forgot whatever you have learned from TW both vanilla and heavily modded Rome total conversions. (talking mechanics and game AI here)

(1) Skirmishers only show their strength in TW in specific conditions. FOG2 almost always has some role for skirmishers to play.

(2) Unlike TW, skirmishers are not easy pickings for cavalry, since they can EVADE effectively. Furthermore, cheap evading skirmishers can pull valuable heavy cavalry from the real fight.

(3) In TW, winning the cavalry fight before infantry fight is joined is a wise move. Being the only army left with cavalry will make a world of difference when infantry is fully engaged. Now in FOG2, cavalry's freedom maneuver is greatly limited prior to the main battle being joined. Winning a cavalry advantage in the game opening is unlikely.

(4) In TW, disengaging is usually possible in many vs 1 situations. This is not the case in FOG2, once in melee, you most likely will have to see it through to conclusion. So, there is less "hit and run", and more just "hit".

(5) In TW, ranged units (parabolic arcs) have much further relative reaches. This includes skirmishers behind your heavy line and the heavy line with pilum itself. As uncivilized enemy will often charge piecemeal (war bands), they will be shredded before contact. Projectile range is very limited in FOG2. Only time and getting up close and personal will make ranged units draw significant blood in FOG2.

(6) In TW, time and space (fatigue modeling and multi-army fights) tends to play a larger role than terrain. In FOG2, terrain is the decisive factor. Know your terrain and game mechanics, and the "meek shall prevail".

(7) In all real world and game systems, corners are a weak spot in linear combat. TW makes corners easier due to the ease of feeding in reinforcements, setting the number of ranks, and being able to disengage units being worn down. In FOG2, your corners must combine strong unit (maybe with a general), correct terrain, and maybe a reserve when they finally give out.

(8) FOG2 is TBS battle. Thus, it behooves you to resolve combats first most likely to do the greatest damage (due to rippling of morale affects) so that later moves meet units which have already failed a cohesion test, or consider sequencing. The right sequencing can get a you devastating flank charge into a unit locked in melee due to the magic of ZOCs. Where as the wrong sequencing will either leave you blocked or at best get a many v one melee situation.

---

If you don't like TBS due to its ponderous nature, the UI can be very ponderous for the statistician to understand all. However, most of these features can be turned of allowing combat to flow very rapidly. Quick tool tips and hovering graphics will tell you all you really need to know once you understand the the underlying game mechanics. It can be a very fast moving TBS game.

PS: I hated TBS and avoid it like the plague, but I would rank this game as being a "classic" a la many games introduced like Sid Meier's Rail Road Tycoon, Gettysburg, and CIV1.

I only came to this game (didn't even know it existed) due to AGEOD's Empires (former member of AGEOD) and I saw the bundle offer and figured "Why not?".

I have played quite a few exported Empire battles via FOG2.

If you are only using FOG2 to resolve empire battles, you are doing yourself a disservice. FOG2 is far richer than just a means to avoid "auto resolve". I would encourage you to fully explore what FOG2 offers in its own right. Also, if you play FOG2 for its own sake, you will fare far better in your Empire battles.

MarkShot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:46 am I only came to this game (didn't even know it existed) due to AGEOD's Empires (former member of AGEOD) and I saw the bundle offer and figured "Why not?".

I have played quite a few exported Empire battles via FOG2.

If you are only using FOG2 to resolve empire battles, you are doing yourself a disservice. FOG2 is far richer than just a means to avoid "auto resolve". I would encourage you to fully explore what FOG2 offers in its own right. Also, if you play FOG2 for its own sake, you will fare far better in your Empire battles.

FOG2 army compositions would be more historical.

Something I'm learning the hard way in the current Digital League season...

Lining up in the "triplex acies" and pitching headlong into the enemy line as the Romans, trusting to your pila, gladii, and troop quality might work against the AI... but it ain't gonna cut it against a player. All those cheap, low-quality infantry units that you're used to cutting through will pry open every flank and make life hell for the best troops.

EDIT: Also, those light cav you thought you could safely ignore... A flank charge at the right moment can be surprisingly effective. Nothing more embarrassing than having your key units routed by light javelin horse. (I learned that one before the league)

Charging Poorly Armed Rabble in rough terrain with skirmishers isn't as easy as one would think. If even you disorder them in the first contact, their massive unit strength will often allow them to recover unless you get lucky or overwhelm them with 3 or more skirmisher units.

Overall, the Rabble units are not as useless or harmless as one might think. They need to be watched, and can be decisive in bad terrain and in conjunction with regulars.