Field of Glory II: Medieval - out now

[Mantuvec]

Field of Glory II: Medieval is now available and is ready to take you back to the High Middle Ages, at the time of the mounted knight.

Set from 1040 AD to 1270 AD, Field of Glory II: Medieval is a deep, historically accurate and expertly researched turn-based tactical game that is delivering in its mission to redefine the wargaming experience and bring fresh life to the genre.

Relieve historical campaigns and legendary battles of the period such as: Hastings, Bouvines, Lake Peipus and many more. Take control of the battle, lead your chosen army and its named generals to victory, or create your historically realistic battlefield for custom scenarios that can be played against the AI or human opponents using Slitherine’s easy to use PBEM3 server.



 
 
Slitherine celebrates the release of the game with a 10% launch discount. Moreover, it will be possible to purchase a new Bundle containing the base copies of Field of Glory II and Field of Glory II: Medieval at an additional discount. 

Furthermore there will be a week-long discounts on all the previous titles of the franchise
Check them out here
 
But that's not all, a patch for Field of Glory II: Medieval will soon arrive and will allow all owners of the game to create their own “Time Warp”. Through this new feature it will be possible to create an infinite number of customized "what-if" battle situations that can be played against an AI or in multiplayer, making the armies of the ancient era collide with medieval ones. Have you ever wondered who would win the battle between the Carthaginians with their War Elephants and a handful of Teutonic knights? Soon you will have the chance to find out.


Get ready, the battle begins.

[Krevan]

The developers added infantry spears to the Russian cavalry instead of cavalry spears. Therefore, the Russian cavalry sometimes evades the battle. I hope the developers will fix this in a patch)

[TheGrayMouser]

The developers added infantry spears to the Russian cavalry instead of cavalry spears. Therefore, the Russian cavalry sometimes evades the battle. I hope the developers will fix this in a patch)

Hi, you must be referring to “light spear” capability which is valid for both infantry and cavalry and would assume a spear and perhaps some javelins. Cavalry armed this way are allowed to evade.

[Krevan]

The developers added infantry spears to the Russian cavalry instead of cavalry spears. Therefore, the Russian cavalry sometimes evades the battle. I hope the developers will fix this in a patch)

Hi, you must be referring to “light spear” capability which is valid for both infantry and cavalry and would assume a spear and perhaps some javelins. Cavalry armed this way are allowed to evade.

Clearly. That is, it is light cavalry, not heavy. I somehow thought that the Russian vigilantes were like knights in Europe. Maybe I'm wrong)

[TheGrayMouser]

The developers added infantry spears to the Russian cavalry instead of cavalry spears. Therefore, the Russian cavalry sometimes evades the battle. I hope the developers will fix this in a patch)

Hi, you must be referring to “light spear” capability which is valid for both infantry and cavalry and would assume a spear and perhaps some javelins. Cavalry armed this way are allowed to evade.

Clearly. That is, it is light cavalry, not heavy. I somehow thought that the Russian vigilantes were like knights in Europe. Maybe I'm wrong)

Heavy/light is a relative term but in game light refers to skirmishers. Boyars ( whom could be well armoured) were not skirmishing cavalry as far as I know!

[Krevan]

Hi, you must be referring to “light spear” capability which is valid for both infantry and cavalry and would assume a spear and perhaps some javelins. Cavalry armed this way are allowed to evade.

Clearly. That is, it is light cavalry, not heavy. I somehow thought that the Russian vigilantes were like knights in Europe. Maybe I'm wrong)

Heavy/light is a relative term but in game light refers to skirmishers. Boyars ( whom could be well armoured) were not skirmishing cavalry as far as I know!

Exactly. The Boyars were heavy cavalry. Who hardly knew how to evade the attack of the other cavalry. Most likely, their tactics were similar to those of the knights.

[rbodleyscott]

Exactly. The Boyars were heavy cavalry. Who hardly knew how to evade the attack of the other cavalry. Most likely, their tactics were similar to those of the knights.

Our information is that in this period Russian (and Polish in the earlier part of the period) heavy cavalry had not adopted western knightly tactics. They used light lances that were used for both thrusting and throwing, and not used "couched" like western knights. They were also willing to use feigned flights - which is what evading represents.

By the 13th century the Poles had switched to western knightly tactics. The Russians took a different path, and after the Mongol invasion, switched to horse archer tactics.

The knights in the Russian army list represent German mercenaries, who were occasionally used in Russian armies.

[Krevan]

Exactly. The Boyars were heavy cavalry. Who hardly knew how to evade the attack of the other cavalry. Most likely, their tactics were similar to those of the knights.

Our information is that in this period Russian (and Polish in the earlier part of the period) heavy cavalry had not adopted western knightly tactics. They used light lances that were used for both thrusting and throwing, and not used "couched" like western knights. They were also willing to use feigned flights - which is what evading represents.

By the 13th century the Poles had switched to western knightly tactics. The Russians took a different path, and after the Mongol invasion, switched to horse archer tactics.

The knights in the Russian army list represent German mercenaries, who were occasionally used in Russian armies.

Thanks for the answer. There is a fierce debate on this issue at the main Russian forum of strategic games)

[paulmcneil]

love the new graphics, especially the little field representations, would be great to have battles at different times of year so that fields become muddy and hamper movement etc

[Krevan]

love the new graphics, especially the little field representations, would be great to have battles at different times of year so that fields become muddy and hamper movement etc

I agree)

[Krevan]

The Battle of Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon infantry attacks the knights of William and the impact is always not in its favor. But if the attack goes through one cell instead of two, then the impact does not occur? Is that what it's supposed to be?

[rbodleyscott]

The Battle of Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon infantry attacks the knights of William and the impact is always not in its favor. But if the attack goes through one cell instead of two, then the impact does not occur?

Not true. The Impact always occurs. The distance charged makes no difference.

[Krevan]

The Battle of Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon infantry attacks the knights of William and the impact is always not in its favor. But if the attack goes through one cell instead of two, then the impact does not occur?

Not true. The Impact always occurs. The distance charged makes no difference.

Clearly) How then to attack these knights?) Even if I attack them from the side or from behind the impact is often not in my favor

[Paul59]

The Battle of Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon infantry attacks the knights of William and the impact is always not in its favor. But if the attack goes through one cell instead of two, then the impact does not occur?

Not true. The Impact always occurs. The distance charged makes no difference.

Clearly) How then to attack these knights?) Even if I attack them from the side or from behind the impact is often not in my favor

With a true flank attack the odds will definitely be in the Spearmen's favour.

Your unit has to start the turn behind the target unit's flank. See a detailed explanation, with screenshots, in the manual (section 11.13.5. Flank/Rear Attacks)

"Charges by units that start their (whole) move behind the flank
of a unit count as flank/rear attacks. To count as being behind
the flank, the unit must be on or behind a line extending the
117
target unit’s flank as shown in the screenshot. The left-hand
knights unit starts its move behind the spearmen unit’s flank,
so its charge will count as a flank attack. The right-hand knights
unit is not behind the flank, so even if its charge contacts the
spearmen unit’s flank, it will not count as a flank attack. If
the right-hand unit moves on to the line and then charges, its
charge still won’t count as a flank attack, because in order to do
so, it must start its whole move behind the flank."

[Krevan]

Not true. The Impact always occurs. The distance charged makes no difference.

Clearly) How then to attack these knights?) Even if I attack them from the side or from behind the impact is often not in my favor

With a true flank attack the odds will definitely be in the Spearmen's favour.

Your unit has to start the turn behind the target unit's flank. See a detailed explanation, with screenshots, in the manual (section 11.13.5. Flank/Rear Attacks)

"Charges by units that start their (whole) move behind the flank
of a unit count as flank/rear attacks. To count as being behind
the flank, the unit must be on or behind a line extending the
117
target unit’s flank as shown in the screenshot. The left-hand
knights unit starts its move behind the spearmen unit’s flank,
so its charge will count as a flank attack. The right-hand knights
unit is not behind the flank, so even if its charge contacts the
spearmen unit’s flank, it will not count as a flank attack. If
the right-hand unit moves on to the line and then charges, its
charge still won’t count as a flank attack, because in order to do
so, it must start its whole move behind the flank."

So, the spearmen can't (without a big risk of getting an impact) attack the knights head-on? Even if the knights are already fighting another squad?

[Paul59]

So, the spearmen can't (without a big risk of getting an impact) attack the knights head-on? Even if the knights are already fighting another squad?

Charging Steady Knights is a very bad idea. As you can see from the screenshot you have about 80% chance of losing, even I am not that reckless to risk doing that:



If the Knights are disordered the chance of losing drops to about 45%, so it's still not great odds, but if your Spearmen survive the impact phase they will have a big advantage in the melees. So it might be something you might consider, especially if the situation is desperate. I must admit that I sometimes take the risk:




If the Knights are fragmented the odds are much better, you probably won't win the impact phase, but you are unlikely to lose, and you will have a massive advantage in the melees. The Knights might even fail their cohesion test before the impact, and rout without fighting.



Of course, if the knights are in difficult, rough or non-open terrain, then the odds will be different. Then it depends on what sort of infantry you attack them with and what effect the terrain has on the knight's capabilities, but generally they will be a much easier opponent if they are not in open terrain.

Knights are really the kings of the battlefield in this period, things changed after about 1300 when infantry started to find ways to beat them. The best way for the English to deal with them at Hastings is to pin them in melee by using your spearmen's ZOCs to stop them falling back from a charge, then hit them in the flanks.

[rbodleyscott]

Even if the knights are already fighting another squad?

It is a deliberate part of the game design that impact POAs still apply if a unit that is already engaged is attacked other than from flank or rear.

This is because not doing so would lead to players sequencing their attacks to avoid the impact POAs on what amounts to a frontal attack. This might seem logical but in fact it is not something that units did historically in this period.

Two physical bodies cannot occupy the same space, and in order for the second attacker to attack frontally at all, part of the engaged unit's front must be available to attack. Units like knights were not monolithic blocks staying rigidly in formation, and it is deemed that the unengaged part of the unit can respond as normal.

Once again, as I say, this might not seem logical, but it is necessary to overcome the inherent problem that in the game a unit can be attacked from 8 adjacent squares, by enemy units fighting at full effect, whereas in reality there would not be physically room for that to occur - each unit would only be able to get part of its front line into contact.

5 of those 8 squares count as flank/rear and it is very bad for an engaged unit to be attacked from those squares. The other 3 are deemed to be frontal attacks, and the enemy gets the chance to respond by using its Impact POAs.

Once in melee, the ganged up on unit will lose 20% of its combat power against each opponent for each additional enemy, up to a maximum of 50%.

So ganging up is effective, but flank/rear attacks are better, and largely risk free since a positive net Impact POA is guaranteed even against frontally much tougher units.

[Krevan]

Charging Steady Knights is a very bad idea. As you can see from the screenshot you have about 80% chance of losing, even I am not that reckless to risk doing that:

Yes, but still the Anglo-Saxons have heavy spearmen in chain mail. They fight better against knights)

If the Knights are disordered the chance of losing drops to about 45%, so it's still not great odds, but if your Spearmen survive the impact phase they will have a big advantage in the melees. So it might be something you might consider, especially if the situation is desperate. I must admit that I sometimes take the risk

It may have been a random number cube prank, but when my spearmen attacked the knights from the nearest square, they were more successful.

[Krevan]

Even if the knights are already fighting another squad?

It is a deliberate part of the game design that impact POAs still apply if a unit that is already engaged is attacked other than from flank or rear.

This is because not doing so would lead to players sequencing their attacks to avoid the impact POAs on what amounts to a frontal attack. This might seem logical but in fact it is not something that units did historically in this period.

Two physical bodies cannot occupy the same space, and in order for the second attacker to attack frontally at all, part of the engaged unit's front must be available to attack. Units like knights were not monolithic blocks staying rigidly in formation, and it is deemed that the unengaged part of the unit can respond as normal.

Once again, as I say, this might not seem logical, but it is necessary to overcome the inherent problem that in the game a unit can be attacked from 8 adjacent squares, by enemy units fighting at full effect, whereas in reality there would not be physically room for that to occur - each unit would only be able to get part of its front line into contact.

5 of those 8 squares count as flank/rear and it is very bad for an engaged unit to be attacked from those squares. The other 3 are deemed to be frontal attacks, and the enemy gets the chance to respond by using its Impact POAs.

Once in melee, the ganged up on unit will lose 20% of its combat power against each opponent for each additional enemy, up to a maximum of 50%.

So ganging up is effective, but flank/rear attacks are better, and largely risk free since a positive net Impact POA is guaranteed even against frontally much tougher units.

Actually, I've already won for the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings.) I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of the game. Thanks)
http://ipic.su/img/img7/fs/FOG2Medieval ... 869188.jpg

[rbodleyscott]

Actually, I've already won for the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings.) I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of the game. Thanks)
http://ipic.su/img/img7/fs/FOG2Medieval ... 869188.jpg

Fair enough. I thought this was a good opportunity to explain the game design logic in case anyone else thought it was odd.