Help me keep my interest in this game alive
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2026 9:13 am
Posted the same question to the Discord channel and Steam forums as well:
This might be a touchy subject for all the fans, but does FOG2 get a quite repetitive game for anyone else?
As a history and battle nerd I bought FOG2 with all the DLC bundle and was originally very enthusiastic. Read the manual, played the tutorials. Due to my interest laying mainly in historical (or semi-historical) scenarios started playing the historical campaigns. Thought it would be interesting to play them chronologically and follow the advance of warfare from the beginning, so started with Sargon of Akkad in the bronze age. Originally liked the game very much: turn based, quite realistic, right level of complexity for my ageing brain.
After completing the Mesopotamia campaign and now almost having completed the next in line (historically) Hittite campaign I'm start to feel bored. All the battles feel pretty much the same with only very minor alterations. I'd say much is due to ultra-samey maps, 80+% open terrain, no impassable bottlenecks, no differentiation between attacker and defender. Some hills or forests here and there, both pretty much avoided by both armies. Gameplay consists of mainly spear and irregular infantry fighting in broad lines, supported by skirmishers and some clumsy chariots trying desperately to assault the flanks. Not so many meaningful decisions to make as general. Total lack of siege and urban warfare in the engine also diminishes the experience.
The other source of repetiviness and lack of meaningful decisions is the unit buying system, your army is like 85-90% pre-determined and you can only make slight alterations with the remaining 10-15%. In those historical campaigns I've experienced there is also next to none army development during the campaign, there is hardly any points for buying new units between scenarios.
And how do you feel about the battle objectives in this game? All but one of the scenarios I've played have had the goal to rout certain percentage of enemy units (+one supply wagon escort mission). Does the engine generate scenarios where you have to attack or defend certain coordinates or do anything different than slay and rout certain number of enemies?
My question: does the game get any more interesting and varied if I continue playing? I know the bronze age dlc was the last released and some feel it lacking, is my experience due to that? I also understand FOG2 is originally a digitalized tabletop game, is that why the maps are so boring? Will there be any more interesting army development in other historical campaigns? I really would like to love the game and renew my enthusiasm. Do you consider it possible?
This might be a touchy subject for all the fans, but does FOG2 get a quite repetitive game for anyone else?
As a history and battle nerd I bought FOG2 with all the DLC bundle and was originally very enthusiastic. Read the manual, played the tutorials. Due to my interest laying mainly in historical (or semi-historical) scenarios started playing the historical campaigns. Thought it would be interesting to play them chronologically and follow the advance of warfare from the beginning, so started with Sargon of Akkad in the bronze age. Originally liked the game very much: turn based, quite realistic, right level of complexity for my ageing brain.
After completing the Mesopotamia campaign and now almost having completed the next in line (historically) Hittite campaign I'm start to feel bored. All the battles feel pretty much the same with only very minor alterations. I'd say much is due to ultra-samey maps, 80+% open terrain, no impassable bottlenecks, no differentiation between attacker and defender. Some hills or forests here and there, both pretty much avoided by both armies. Gameplay consists of mainly spear and irregular infantry fighting in broad lines, supported by skirmishers and some clumsy chariots trying desperately to assault the flanks. Not so many meaningful decisions to make as general. Total lack of siege and urban warfare in the engine also diminishes the experience.
The other source of repetiviness and lack of meaningful decisions is the unit buying system, your army is like 85-90% pre-determined and you can only make slight alterations with the remaining 10-15%. In those historical campaigns I've experienced there is also next to none army development during the campaign, there is hardly any points for buying new units between scenarios.
And how do you feel about the battle objectives in this game? All but one of the scenarios I've played have had the goal to rout certain percentage of enemy units (+one supply wagon escort mission). Does the engine generate scenarios where you have to attack or defend certain coordinates or do anything different than slay and rout certain number of enemies?
My question: does the game get any more interesting and varied if I continue playing? I know the bronze age dlc was the last released and some feel it lacking, is my experience due to that? I also understand FOG2 is originally a digitalized tabletop game, is that why the maps are so boring? Will there be any more interesting army development in other historical campaigns? I really would like to love the game and renew my enthusiasm. Do you consider it possible?