Slitherine

First off, I want to say that I really dig the concept of these games and how it's evolving. Every new game I play (and I've played P&S, SJ, FG2, FG:M) shows notable improvements and progress. Starting from FG2, the historical accuracy got way better (although I liked the era of P&S more) and managed to reach a pretty unique combination of a balanced chess-like competitive game and historical authenticity. When you think about the simplicity of the game mechanics, the fights in it really remind me of what I can read in historical chronicles. So, I'd like to see the games of the series keep getting better in this direction. With that said, I would highlight 3 aspects in the game that seem controversial to me, from large to small:

1) Combat strength (more on this below)

2) The fact that Heavy weapon troops don't belong to Shock troops (I still don't get the logic of why some troops are categorized as shock troops and others are not, and how a halberd (heavy weapon) is less "shock" than a pike). If the point of this mechanic is to make the strongest in close combat units more vulnerable from the flanks, then dismounted knights seem strong enough to fall under this logic. Overall, "heavy weapons", giving the +100 POA against any cavalry or infantry, while nullifying the armor bonus, seems to be quite a strong combat ability.

3) Absence of a supply train / fortified camp. Clashes at the camp or dragging the army into the plundering of the train is mentioned too often in ancient chronicles to ignore this aspect, especially when often this was a crucial factor for victory or defeat of one of the sides, as in the battle of Magnesia for example. I understand that the clashes at the camp in the game as such are modeled by the mechanic of cavalry fleeing off the map when pursuing, but still, the physical presence of a camp on the battlefield would add massively to the "immersion". I really liked the general's tents in SJ.


About combat strength.

From what I understand, the combat strength parameter reflects the fatigue of soldiers, wear and tear on weapons, armor and the general losses of wounded and killed. Having the combat strength below 480 drastically affects a unit's ability to fight. Most units start a battle with combat strength equal to around 480, so they start to lose efficiency with their first losses. Given this, it's fair to assume that the soldiers of a unit size 480 or less are all on the front line and participate in the battle simultaneously, without any reserves. Although the player can have reserves in the form of additional units, placed behind the main line, but won't be able to bring them into the fight until the moment the enemy breaks or pushes through the front line. It turns out that the soldiers in the reserve lines see their comrades die at the front line, being surrounded by more numerous enemies, but can't fill in the gaps formed in the front line of their army. This is a limitation of the engine and I understand that the mechanics of "replenishing" front-line units with the combat strength of the second-line units will probably overcomplicate the mechanics, reduce the "chess" aspect of the game. However, the question arises: within this concept, what do units with "reserve" combat strength, such as barbarian warbands, represent? After all, they do not have problems with replacing the wounded and tired fighters of the first line with fighters from the reserve (within one unit). This state of affairs leads to the fact that in the case of clashes of Roman legions with barbarian warbands in the game, we observe a dynamic, opposite to what we read in the works of chroniclers. The Romans wrote that the barbarians are strong with the first powerful onslaught, and if it does not achieve the necessary effect, they quickly lose their fighting spirit. That is, the Romans saw their advantage precisely in the ability to fight a prolonged battle, which was apparently achieved by a more active use of reserves, removing tired soldiers to the rear for rest and re-equipment and bringing fresh soldiers into battle.

In the game, on the contrary, we observe the opposite mechanics - it's the barbarians who need to withstand the first powerful onslaught of the Romans and hold out long enough, when the Romans "get tired" and then, in a protracted battle, they get an advantage over Romans incapable of deploying reserves. As far as I understand, the increased size of warbands' units was supposed to show that barbarians try to crush the enemy with numbers, but considering the overall philosophy of the game "top-down", it turned out that the barbarians have better tactics with the introduction of reserves and they turn out to be stronger precisely in a prolonged battle. That is, for a better match to the historical mechanics, under the current game concept, it is the barbarians that should have units with high quality (representing the force of the initial onslaught) but low combat strength (possibly even below 480 to get a debuff on melee on the very first turn), while Romans should be weaker as individual fighters (quality average), but have high combat strength, symbolizing better organization. For the Romans, combat strength is kinda "gathered" in large units, showing the organization and interaction of several subdivisions as a single organism (unit); while the barbarians should have a lot of "little units", showing their disunity, and inability to interact between different subdivisions: the front and the reserve ones.

Are my assumptions right and what do you think about the proposed unit rebalance (probably already within the next game)?

Also, probably, combat strength and the direct number of fighters should be divided into two related parameters, because combat strength is a more abstract one, symbolizing overall organization and combat readiness, rather than the direct number of fighters (it's already calculated differently for infantry, cavalry and, say, elephants). Therefore, I would distinguish between combat strength and soldier count, the latter is needed only to show the stats of losses at the end of the battle, and the main parameter that players should look at would be combat strength. Moreover, I wouldn't scale it depending on the scenario.

Food for thought. Thanks

I will leave the second point to other seasoned veterans.

The warbands are fighting lots of other units and factions not just the Romans. Overall, I am fairly happy with their performance. They are large units with impact capabilities. There are also superior quality warbands which can dominate the battlefield. Also, Roman troops are remarkably resilient because of their quality (usually superior) and have the advantage over other swordsmen and many other units in the melee rounds.

Perhaps you could include camps in certain scenario battles. I am not overly concerned about them myself.

Schastny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 8:00 pm 2) The fact that Heavy weapon troops don't belong to Shock troops (I still don't get the logic of why some troops are categorized as shock troops and others are not, and how a halberd (heavy weapon) is less "shock" than a pike). If the point of this mechanic is to make the strongest in close combat units more vulnerable from the flanks, then dismounted knights seem strong enough to fall under this logic. Overall, "heavy weapons", giving the +100 POA against any cavalry or infantry, while nullifying the armor bonus, seems to be quite a strong combat ability.

Pushing back is neither good nor bad. As you note, it can open units up to flanks, but it also allows them to keep pressing the advantage against units that may benefit from repeated Impact, or who have ranged weaponry, or are in the vicinity of friendlies who can cover them either by fire or zocs. So it just means different handling of such units.

HW as POA is arguably worse than Offensive Spearmen - sure, it can negate 50 armor POA, but it has no reduction of Impact. Spearmen reduce Knightly Lancer, Lancer, and Heavy Chariot Impact POAs, and halves enemy infantry swordsmen and fully cancels mounted swordsmen POAs (except Cataphracts, whose swords they halve), while HW's armor canceling only happens against those units that are better armored than they are. Otherwise HW get +10POA when they are Armored+.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 5:34 pm
Pushing back is neither good nor bad. As you note, it can open units up to flanks, but it also allows them to keep pressing the advantage against units that may benefit from repeated Impact, or who have ranged weaponry, or are in the vicinity of friendlies who can cover them either by fire or zocs. So it just means different handling of such units.

HW as POA is arguably worse than Offensive Spearmen - sure, it can negate 50 armor POA, but it has no reduction of Impact. Spearmen reduce Knightly Lancer, Lancer, and Heavy Chariot Impact POAs, and halves enemy infantry swordsmen and fully cancels mounted swordsmen POAs (except Cataphracts, whose swords they halve), while HW's armor canceling only happens against those units that are better armored than they are. Otherwise HW get +10POA when they are Armored+.

Pushback is good offensively against wide thin line i.e. overcommited if you use more compact formations esp. wedge. Depth can be created by line geometrics without much physical reinforcements, but thats another topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but pushback into you or offensivelly when your line faces opponent diagonnally is so incredibly good that devs decreased chances of it happening compared to the frontal pushbacks. In FoG 2 there is no anarchy charges bait, but you can do that strategically and tactically anyway, albeit have to try harder. Again, depends on the both sides composition and apparent plans. Most of the time pushback is sought after for offensive and defensive play. On defensive in Medieval is more applicable to negate defensive spears. In FoG 2 you can really deny only Mediums in such a stastegic manner.

As for the Impact vs Melee its a common knowledge that melee is better. But it fails to account for dynamics. In the vacuum where two thin lines engage Melee is better for sure. Plus in FoG 2 you cant milk Impact since most lists units has competent protection from it. Unless you playing for PUSHBACKS that do not necessary require succesful Disruption to proc. Heavy units are decent if not for their pricing. Altho Im sure patches rebalanced them in the last years. The idea behind them is that your opponent won't always stock up on cheapo units against whom Heavies lose intrinsic value.

Schastny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 8:00 pm First off, I want to say that I really dig the concept of these games and how it's evolving. Every new game I play (and I've played P&S, SJ, FG2, FG:M) shows notable improvements and progress. Starting from FG2, the historical accuracy got way better (although I liked the era of P&S more) and managed to reach a pretty unique combination of a balanced chess-like competitive game and historical authenticity. When you think about the simplicity of the game mechanics, the fights in it really remind me of what I can read in historical chronicles. So, I'd like to see the games of the series keep getting better in this direction. With that said, I would highlight 3 aspects in the game that seem controversial to me, from large to small:

On your Rome and Combat Strength points. Combat strength represents what it does. Morale state, exhaustion, experience covered by Quality already. Take a note that Combat Strength Modifier fills up very gradually at slow pace. And 20% Combat Strength Discrepancy is about 50 PoA difference. Remember that most Warriors are lower quality and have Coherence Test penalties for losing in the Open to Heavy Foot of any kind including Romans. Many players actually pray to succeed on Impact cuz they know what follows in Melee.

SuitedQueens wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 10:19 pm Correct me if I'm wrong, but pushback into you or offensivelly when your line faces opponent diagonnally is so incredibly good that devs decreased chances of it happening compared to the frontal pushbacks.

No, this was reduced from earlier versions primarily because it led to fairly ridiculous looking situations with two lines pushing many squares past each other, particularly with phalanxes.

In FoG 2 there is no anarchy charges bait, but you can do that strategically and tactically anyway, albeit have to try harder.

Yep, though some mods do add Anarchy; it was in FoG1 as well. I believe it was consciously not added to FoG2 because it was thought so many people would dislike it.

As for the Impact vs Melee its a common knowledge that melee is better.

This kind of depends. With decent quality units, agreed melee is more important. With trash, where the whole point is that they just have to survive long enough for some other unit to either assist them or win elsewhere, and who are unlikely to survive bad checks, prioritizing Impact can make sense.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 10:40 pm No, this was reduced from earlier versions primarily because it led to fairly ridiculous looking situations with two lines pushing many squares past each other, particularly with phalanxes.

Honestly I think the other reason is the diagonal setups tend to be better at cutting off space to reduce opponent mobility. And automatic flanks by units waiting in reserve if opponents pushes in is nothing to sneeze at. You can't get autoflank with frontal engagement on the next turn after pushback.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 10:40 pm This kind of depends. With decent quality units, agreed melee is more important. With trash, where the whole point is that they just have to survive long enough for some other unit to either assist them or win elsewhere, and who are unlikely to survive bad checks, prioritizing Impact can make sense.

That what I meant by dynamics. Meatshields is often ignored componwnt of the game. They zone and delay too good plus provide the extra points to afford more potential losses. I mean with all these Effective Unit Size conversion to count percentages they still worth it. You cant ignore them too since ZoC and Flanking Threats for CT and physically.

Edit: they even threaten flanks for cavalry. If you charge from the flanking square without starting in flanking position cavalry can't break off instantly, which can lead to pile up trap or physical fallback square blocking.

I like the idea of a baggage camp if it would encourage players to more aggressively move to the center - ie, to perhaps be located in the last quarter of the map but not the final row, and be restricted to exposed terrain. If it ends up encouraging both sides to build a defensive perimeter around the camp and chase down every light horse going far out on the flank, then maybe then.

Redoing combat strength would require massive rebalancing, and I'm not sure I like the idea of downgrading Romans to "average." A more explicit separation of elan and discipline/training might work, but again, I think the balance works quite well already. Warbands can be quite brittle, and their reduced numbers and propensity to push back/pursue allow them to be flanked by more flexible forces.

Perhaps the "disciplined" trait could reduce the effect that losses have on overall performance, thus making it more valuable. That's still a big rebalancing of a currently well-balanced system, though!

Nijis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 2:42 pm I like the idea of a baggage camp if it would encourage players to more aggressively move to the center - ie, to perhaps be located in the last quarter of the map but not the final row, and be restricted to exposed terrain. If it ends up encouraging both sides to build a defensive perimeter around the camp and chase down every light horse going far out on the flank, then maybe then.

Redoing combat strength would require massive rebalancing, and I'm not sure I like the idea of downgrading Romans to "average." A more explicit separation of elan and discipline/training might work, but again, I think the balance works quite well already. Warbands can be quite brittle, and their reduced numbers and propensity to push back/pursue allow them to be flanked by more flexible forces.

Perhaps the "disciplined" trait could reduce the effect that losses have on overall performance, thus making it more valuable. That's still a big rebalancing of a currently well-balanced system, though!

Nope. Refer to Field of Glory tabletop rules. They have Camps, often ignored feature due to the game pacing. But in Field of Glory Computer adaption there is no double moves, so you can retreat to the camp without being punished unless opponent has plethora of shooters of any capacity.