Any planned enhancements?

[CaptainPunka]

I'm a newcomer to Field of Glory II. I used to play the miniatures game, and I am really loving this game. I have gone all-in having purchased FoG 2 (Ancients & Medieval) as well as all add-ons!

I was wondering if there are plans for either of the following:

1. Multiplayer experience - Any plans to have players play while logged into the same game instead of having to upload turns to the server after each turn?

2. Medieval Expansions - Are there plans to add additional army lists to the Medieval game just as was done with the Ancients one?

If there are plans for either of the above, is there any advertised timeline?

[Mord]

2. Medieval Expansions - Are there plans to add additional army lists to the Medieval game just as was done with the Ancients one?

We're waiting on a dlc now. It should be out late April/early May going by the Twitch stream Tea Time release map. My guess is it'll be southern Europe. Plans are to take the game to 1500 AD.

If there are plans for either of the above, is there any advertised timeline?

Ancients has one more dlc which will cover 2500-600 BC or so (think Swifter than Eagles). It won't be released until after Medieval is finished. I figure there are at least 3 or 4 Med dlcs before we get back to FoG II Ancients.

Mord.

[CaptainPunka]

That sounds great! Thanks for the response?

Should I assume the multiplayer experience is what it is and will not likely be updated? For example, I think each of the following enhancements would be amazing:

* Interactively have both players be online at same time (i.e. no need to upload to central server and saves on load time)
* Better chat capabilities
* Ranking (ELO system)

Just a few thoughts. Don't get me wrong though, I LOVE this game! Even if the multiplayer platform remains as is, it's a hearty recommend from my perspective.

[Patrick Ward]

Should I assume the multiplayer experience is what it is and will not likely be updated? For example, I think each of the following enhancements would be amazing:

Never assume ... If theres things you want to see happen, write about it.

If something is going to happen, we'll tell you near the time of release. We don't give out time tables for a whole host of obvious reasons.
If it's definitly not going to happen, we'll likely tell you. Sometimes we don't reply to a topic because we don't want to influence the conversation. Then we can make informed rather than biased decisions.

P

[SimonLancaster]

That sounds great! Thanks for the response?

Should I assume the multiplayer experience is what it is and will not likely be updated? For example, I think each of the following enhancements would be amazing:

* Interactively have both players be online at same time (i.e. no need to upload to central server and saves on load time)
* Better chat capabilities
* Ranking (ELO system)

Just a few thoughts. Don't get me wrong though, I LOVE this game! Even if the multiplayer platform remains as is, it's a hearty recommend from my perspective.

More chat capabilities and rating might be good.

About playing at the same time. Do you think you would do this for smaller battles? I mean, sometimes in the middle of a battle it can easily take 10 mins to finish a turn. That is a lot of hanging around for a live game.

I play another turn-based game called Chaos Reborn. There is often a one min timer for each player. Even 2 mins can really slow a game up. Timers wouldn't work with FoG 2, I think, for normal battles.

Perhaps a speed chess type of small battle option...

[galahad14]

I'm a newcomer to Field of Glory II. I used to play the miniatures game, and I am really loving this game. I have gone all-in having purchased FoG 2 (Ancients & Medieval) as well as all add-ons!

I was wondering if there are plans for either of the following:

1. Multiplayer experience - Any plans to have players play while logged into the same game instead of having to upload turns to the server after each turn?

2. Medieval Expansions - Are there plans to add additional army lists to the Medieval game just as was done with the Ancients one?

If there are plans for either of the above, is there any advertised timeline?

You can check mods for the game sotckwellpete made some mp maps and I made 2 campaigns (4 battles each) and Im in the middle of making the next one

[CaptainPunka]

About playing at the same time. Do you think you would do this for smaller battles? I mean, sometimes in the middle of a battle it can easily take 10 mins to finish a turn. That is a lot of hanging around for a live game.

Personally, I think it would be fine for any sized game. I play a lot of online board games that can take up to 6 hours to play. I've also played countless hours of in-person miniatures tabletop games. In those games, it can also easily take an opponent 10-20 minutes on their turn. But, part of the fun is playing with a friend, being on voice communication, and sharing the experience.

To put it another way, this is a digital implementation of the Field of Glory tabletop miniature game and many (myself included) would not bat an eye to wait around for an opponent to complete a turn. And if anything, from what I've seen, this online adaptation actually plays much, much faster because it's so great at doing all the rolls for you.

[SimonLancaster]

About playing at the same time. Do you think you would do this for smaller battles? I mean, sometimes in the middle of a battle it can easily take 10 mins to finish a turn. That is a lot of hanging around for a live game.

Personally, I think it would be fine for any sized game. I play a lot of online board games that can take up to 6 hours to play. I've also played countless hours of in-person miniatures tabletop games. In those games, it can also easily take an opponent 10-20 minutes on their turn. But, part of the fun is playing with a friend, being on voice communication, and sharing the experience.

To put it another way, this is a digital implementation of the Field of Glory tabletop miniature game and many (myself included) would not bat an eye to wait around for an opponent to complete a turn. And if anything, from what I've seen, this online adaptation actually plays much, much faster because it's so great at doing all the rolls for you.

10-20 mins per turn would defeat the object of playing a “live game” I think. You may as well just click and post a turn up like now. Playing board games is different from playing on the PC.

But, some players are fast and some turns won’t take over 10 mins to complete. We live in a time where players don’t want to spend hours completing a game. I think board games like Monopoly, card games and strategy games all have some kind of timer.

It would be interesting to hear what others think.

[pipfromslitherine]

The discussion here is a good indicator of why, despite the fact that we know it would be very welcome by some players, live MP hasn't sprinted past other tasks. It's a significant development and (mostly) testing task, for a % of MP players, who themselves are a minority of total player base.

That said, any thoughts on the best way to implement it are going to make it better when it arrives!

Cheers

Pip

[CaptainPunka]

One idea that might be easy to implement is in multiplayer having the ability to name your game. That way, when you get the email notifications they don't say something like "Random Map Battle". This would make playing in multiple games a little easier as you would know which game has a turn available and also would add a little flavor.

[General Shapur]

About playing at the same time. Do you think you would do this for smaller battles? I mean, sometimes in the middle of a battle it can easily take 10 mins to finish a turn. That is a lot of hanging around for a live game.

Personally, I think it would be fine for any sized game. I play a lot of online board games that can take up to 6 hours to play. I've also played countless hours of in-person miniatures tabletop games. In those games, it can also easily take an opponent 10-20 minutes on their turn. But, part of the fun is playing with a friend, being on voice communication, and sharing the experience.

To put it another way, this is a digital implementation of the Field of Glory tabletop miniature game and many (myself included) would not bat an eye to wait around for an opponent to complete a turn. And if anything, from what I've seen, this online adaptation actually plays much, much faster because it's so great at doing all the rolls for you.

10-20 mins per turn would defeat the object of playing a “live game” I think. You may as well just click and post a turn up like now. Playing board games is different from playing on the PC.

But, some players are fast and some turns won’t take over 10 mins to complete. We live in a time where players don’t want to spend hours completing a game. I think board games like Monopoly, card games and strategy games all have some kind of timer.

It would be interesting to hear what others think.

Perhaps the best way would be to use a chess timer concept. Each side has 10min to play and if you run out of time before the game ends - you lose. You know the game won't last more than 20min - which is reasonable and doable. This will force players to move quickly and not ruminate over moves, it will also add a bit of 'real time' stress. To be honest, after thousands of PBEM turns I know some players seem to conjure up the perfect sequence of moves after lots of pre-planning presumably - real battles probably didn't go quite so smoothly.

[Atherys]

Perhaps the best way would be to use a chess timer concept. Each side has 10min to play and if you run out of time before the game ends - you lose. You know the game won't last more than 20min - which is reasonable and doable. This will force players to move quickly and not ruminate over moves, it will also add a bit of 'real time' stress. To be honest, after thousands of PBEM turns I know some players seem to conjure up the perfect sequence of moves after lots of pre-planning presumably - real battles probably didn't go quite so smoothly.

I'm not sure a game can last 20 minutes or shorter, as a single round in mid phase takes at least 5 minutes for a fast player while still be able to think or plan, totalling 10 minutes per round for both players. 10 minutes for each players is not enough for any kind of planning at all, even a tiny plan.

Even moving a standard medium-sized army without thinking takes at least a minute. 10 minutes is not enough to even play the game mindlessly.

Real battles maybe won't go as smoothly as this game, but this game is turn-based. We need to be able to plan our moves. I might as well go back to real-time Total War if I need to play the game really fast.

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, one thing that slows down the turns in the FoG 2 system is that the melees are all performed by the player. This is great for PBEM but not so much for some kind of live game. I think Pike & Shot has automated melees which speeds things up.

[Athos1660]

The player is not obliged to press 'Fight melee' though, even if it gives an advantage. He can choose to end the turn before that and let the melees be auto-resolved like in Pike and Shot.

btw I don't want to know (or want to forget) the order in which the melees are auto-resolved (random, depending on the unit number...)

[Karvon]

I think a chess clock option for playing time isn't a bad idea, but I would want it to be configurable and based on the total turns, i.e., 10 min x 24 turns for a total of 240 minutes for the game. The bigger problem would be figuring out a reasonable clock for time between turns. The current official tournaments have a total time remaining for games, though it doesn't seem to be reporting properly atm. A configurable option for that would be a nice addition I think.

[Patrick Ward]

Honestly. You're all light-weights!

Before the pandemic, every Friday was games night here. Starting at 8pm. Finishing at 4am ish. Sometimes continuing the same wargame over the following weeks.

Pfft. Amateurs. Some of us know how to party.



P

[CaptainPunka]

Is there a way in multi-player for both players to choose whatever army they want? Or is it locked in by the player creating the battle? If there is not such an option, that might be an excellent enhancement. A further enhancement would be to restrict the opponents choice of army to a geographical and/or time appropriate selection.

[rbodleyscott]

Is there a way in multi-player for both players to choose whatever army they want? Or is it locked in by the player creating the battle?

Currently it has to be set up by the player creating the challenge. Obviously, if the players are in communication with each other, they can agree the armies before one of them sets up the challenge. This is how it works in the various player-run tournaments and campaigns.

If there is not such an option, that might be an excellent enhancement. A further enhancement would be to restrict the opponents choice of army to a geographical and/or time appropriate selection.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[SpeedyCM]

I can't see "live mp" being appreciably faster than two players using the current system and discord or some other chat/messaging program.
The little added value in my view is not worth the development time/cost required to add it.

[CaptainPunka]

Speedy - I would suggest you are thinking about it from the perspective you know your opponent already. But if I want to create a game for a stranger to accept, and I want to play Greeks (mercenary), why should I be forced to choose the stranger's army for him? It would be cool for me to say, you can play whatever you want.

I recognize if you already know your opponent, you can set it up accordingly. I'm thinking more about how I use the interface which is to create games for people I don't know. Hope that makes sense.

If instead you are referring to my earlier point to play "live" against an opponent, it would save a lot of time watching "replays". I was just playing a game last night on Discord with a buddy, and it would have been faster IMO without the overhead of uploading to server, watching replays, etc. But, in this thread I had already moved past this request and was asking about different enhancements.