The Update or New FoG Can Only Come All Too Soon ...

[Old_Warrior]

I am letting my games finish off and then I will be waiting to see how the next update works. Still the same ole "Steady attacks Fragmented" loses 57 (my unit) and doesn't rout the Frag'd unit.

Rear attacks failing to make a dent in a unit. Army matchups working to where the army with more units wins.

Hoping to see some sort of smart move to fix the combat results. It should be less of a die roll match up.

Will keep my eye out for the update. Hope it is out before the year is done!

(NOTE: I downloaded the lastest beta build for the next update and will be trying out the combat to see if it differs much from FoG1. If not then will just wait to see what FoG2 offers us.)

[batesmotel]

The initial release of the new FoG is going to be very close to the current for behavior. It may well evolve in future versions after that but the goal for the initial release is primarily the same behavior as the current version.

Chris

[oldbear1962]

I confess right now I'd just settle for it actually turning up. The longer it goes on the more I expect it to fold and go away. As for it not changing, what exactly is going to change with the game then?

[Brigz]

I confess right now I'd just settle for it actually turning up. The longer it goes on the more I expect it to fold and go away. As for it not changing, what exactly is going to change with the game then?

I have also become very disenchanted with the re-write project. Lot's of excitement and praise at first but now, after over a year, we are being told not to expect much and that progress is esoteric at best. Don't get me wrong, I'm still very appreciative of the effort being made by well meaning people to give those of us who bought the game a better product. But time and silence have dulled what was initially exciting expectations.

Again, thanks very much to all those involved with the project to make FoG a better game. I really do appreciate it. However, as time passes with little progress and virtually no information, it's hard to hide my disappointment. I have purchased the game and all of the DAG modules, but now I feel like the bride left at the alter with shattered expectations of what was to be. It was a fine romance while it lasted but the glow of affection for FoG has grown cold.

[stockwellpete]

My guess is that some of the delay, at least, is related to the fact that games are increasingly being purchased by people using i-pods and other hand-held platforms, rather than laptops and PC's. Apparently the market is changing very quickly at the moment.

[the_iron_duke]

I too am a bit disappointed with the development of this game. The game was released nearly four years ago in November 2009 and there are lots of small niggles that have still to be ironed out.

Take the cost-free supporting bow. It's basically an uncorrected error that results in a gamey FoG cheat. The Decline & Fall expansion was released in December 2011 and this issue has still not been fixed, when it could probably be done so in five or ten minutes by amending the Army Lists.

The initial estimate for the new FoG was "three or four months" back in March 2012. I can only hope that when the new version is finally released that the development team will quickly seek to redress the existing problems rather than submitting to the status quo and allowing a carbon copy of the current game to exist for more months/years.

The supporting bow problem, green/arid maps, map previews, turn counter discrepancies, Victory status screen/Marginal victory discrepancies, loads of spelling mistakes in the DAG lists are things I can think of off the top of my head. Unlike some other players I have no major problems with the basic rule set or combat odds and see such things as perhaps subjective. The other things are the the kind of things I would expect with other computer games to be fixed in the first patch, often released weeks after a game's initial release.

I have always felt this game deserves a bigger audience as it is a great multiplayer game. Maybe it is better known from the tabletop wargaming side, but from the computer strategy gaming side (which is by far the biggest market audience) it is very obscure and hard to discover. One way to give a computer game the best chance of success is to nurture and curate it, eliminating problem issues and making the odd small enhancement here and there. Field of Glory feels rather in limbo at the moment but I retain some hope that the development team will get it back on track when the new version is released in due course.

Grumble hat off/FoG fanatic hat back on.

[oldbear1962]

All I know is that I'd be more than happy to pay something for an improved version. I worry that having decided to make this free they have lost motivation somewhere down the tracks.

[Old_Warrior]

Yes, I agree. I would HAPPILY pay the full price for an updated game that has a lot of bells and whistles added to it. Just call it FOG2 and move on ... folks should NOT expect something for nothing.

Having helped put out seven software titles where I did the research and compiled all of the scenario design work to include the maps I see A LOT of this from consumers. Hey, when Ford puts out a new car they do not give it to you in exchange for your old one! LOL

So if that helps - for ME - just put out FOG2 - make it backwards compatible with the modules and hey, we get to have our cake and eat it too.

[Brigz]

Yes, I agree. I would HAPPILY pay the full price for an updated game that has a lot of bells and whistles added to it. Just call it FOG2 and move on ... folks should NOT expect something for nothing.

Having helped put out seven software titles where I did the research and compiled all of the scenario design work to include the maps I see A LOT of this from consumers. Hey, when Ford puts out a new car they do not give it to you in exchange for your old one! LOL

So if that helps - for ME - just put out FOG2 - make it backwards compatible with the modules and hey, we get to have our cake and eat it too.

I'd pay too. When I first bought FoG I thought that finally the ancients game I had always hoped for was here. Unfortunately, after buying all the DAG extensions and playing the game, it turned out that FoG was not the game I had hoped it to be. Hell, I even bought a copy of the FoG table top rules in the hopes it would make the game more enjoyable. Didn't help. (But I'm glad I bought it...it's a beautiful book.) If it takes another six months or another year, then that's fine. I'm not asking for much, just would like to know what's happening with the re-write. Obviously something has happened to hinder progress or the scope of the project was miscalculated. How about letting us know what the situation is? I think we've all been pretty patient.

[TheGrayMouser]

Just some comments on the comments.
ist I'm not trying justify any of the silence from the developers but they are recreating the entire code from scratch with basically only the "rules" to guide them. I don't believe they even HAVE the old VB code.

My guess is the latest thing holding up a new beta version is an AI.

That being said, sure , the game does have quite a few spelling errors and there are a few actual bugs which are relatively minor BTW the no cost for supporting bows is NOT a bug but a design feature that really didn't become a complaint for players until 2-3 YEARs after the game was released IMHO it took that long for enough cumulative accrued experience to show that free bows are imbalanced.

I think that we need to remember this game is 4 years old. It delivered what it was basically intended to at the time and what we want now is all the xtras we can think of( and I personally have clamoured for many). It appears some if not all will be delivered at some point for free. Now what I say next is pure speculation and guessing on my part , but I believe the unity version is really meant to be a springboard for other games, they are just getting it right for FOG ist, call it a test for a new engine if you will. If not I really don't believe any game company would rewrite the entire code for a game , and add additional features simply to sell a few more expansion packs. It just doesn't seem like it would be cost effective to do so. That being said it would be real nice to hear from Dan that the project hasn't been stumped or put on a back burner or something like that.

[the_iron_duke]

BTW the no cost for supporting bows is NOT a bug but a design feature that really didn't become a complaint for players until 2-3 YEARs after the game was released IMHO it took that long for enough cumulative accrued experience to show that free bows are imbalanced.

The game has been created with great logical elegance and so I find it impossible to believe that supporting bow was intended to be free from the start. I thought it odd when I first saw it in the Army Lists and in perhaps the first game I used an army with it (Dailami Buyids), I felt it was almost unsportingly unfair.

[TheGrayMouser]

BTW the no cost for supporting bows is NOT a bug but a design feature that really didn't become a complaint for players until 2-3 YEARs after the game was released IMHO it took that long for enough cumulative accrued experience to show that free bows are imbalanced.

The game has been created with great logical elegance and so I find it impossible to believe that supporting bow was intended to be free from the start. I thought it odd when I first saw it in the Army Lists and in perhaps the first game I used an army with it (Dailami Buyids), I felt it was almost unsportingly unfair.

I think as the later expansions came out that featured ALOT of armies w support bows , it became an issue...

[the_iron_duke]

It is particularly illogical since supporting MF Bow costs 1 pt and makes the unit lose its spear PoA. I don't know whether that's intentional either.

If it is, then it would seem to make sense to either allow supporting LF Bow units to retain their spear advantage and cost a point or make LF Bow free but make the unit also forfeit its spear advantage, in line with MF Bow (who are capable of inflicting heavier missile damage). There are other things that could be brought into the mix, like whether supporting bow should be able to disrupt or should the bonus apply to being charged by cavalry only.

In any case, it is currently imbalanced as it is and remains an elephant(with supporting LFBow)-in-the-room issue for some Army Books.

[fogman]

Given the amount of time I've been kept entertained by it, it was the best purchase I've ever made, despite all the too obvious flaws. I've never been impressed with its historical value: the DAG games allow for 'historical armies' that are essentially historically themed fantasies and fighting to be had on terrain that no general would fight a pitched battle over. ever. The extreme dice results are maddening beyond belief, even when I play myself! I indulged in playing MP for about a year which was quite successful and highly addictive but all the flaws and the lack of command and control left me with an empty feeling. The command and control issues, which are tolerable in DAG games, are really what destroys the value of all the historical scenarios as the players are free to engage in whatever impossible manoeuvres they fancy with the kind of flexibility even a modern hi-tech army would find to be beyond its capabilities. But those do make you feel clever and in complete control, which is considered a birthright for most players. Like most endeavours however what you get out of it depends on what you invest into it. I've found it rewarding to bring my own stamp, either imposing restrictions on armies and terrain for the Lords tournaments or designing events-restrictive simulations for my scenarios. Despite everything, FOG's stunning breadth and scope keep me occupied and I have not played another game for at least two years. So i'm not disenchanted nor do I feel abandoned; i just found a way to adapt it to my own specifications and I carry on merrily in my little corner, doing things I enjoy in my free time, that is historical research and devising new ways to beat the software's limitations. I don't expect much of FOG2 but I would gladly pay for it. Like some posters, I believe that to make it a free upgrade was a huge marketing mistake. People are willing to pay for quality but expect little more than mediocrity for giveaways.

[fogman]

BTW the no cost for supporting bows is NOT a bug but a design feature that really didn't become a complaint for players until 2-3 YEARs after the game was released IMHO it took that long for enough cumulative accrued experience to show that free bows are imbalanced.

The game has been created with great logical elegance and so I find it impossible to believe that supporting bow was intended to be free from the start. I thought it odd when I first saw it in the Army Lists and in perhaps the first game I used an army with it (Dailami Buyids), I felt it was almost unsportingly unfair.

just take matters into your own hands. I banned dailamis with supporting bows in lords of khurasan. since i don't play randomly anymore, it's no irritation at all. we just have to focus on the positives and find ways to disregard the negatives. and there are ways to be found.

[TheGrayMouser]

ha ha , Daylamis, no doudt the reason why players want 1 xtr point for LF bow...

I can find so little about these peoples on the internet, I do wonder how they were classified to be armoured impact foot in the lists

Truly the only useful info I can find is this: (from a tract from Ian Heath)
"The Daylamis were a rough mountain people of the Caspian region. During this period they served as mercenaries with the Sassanids, Samanids, Buyids (themselves a Daylami dynasty), Fatimids, Saftarids and Ghaznavids, and later with the Seljuks until the end of the 12th century.
They fought mainly as infantry though they used mules or camels for transport and the wealthiest rode horses. Their cavalry were supplied chiefly by Turkish mercenaries and ghulams.
Their standard arms consisted of sword, brightly painted shield and zupin, the latter a short javelin used for thrusting or throwing"

This really sounds more like protected light spear sword foot vs armoured impact!

[batesmotel]

You'll find more info under the alternate transliteration as Dailami. Two links with more info are http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbworks.c ... ami%20Foot and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dailamites. Both of those provide further links and references. Probably a better representation would be to only allow a proportion or the dailami to be armoured or only a limited number.

Chris

[batesmotel]

The existing code base for FoG V1 is probably unmaintainable without the original author from Hexwar. While the initial idea was to have someone else takeover maintaining the code, it was eventually decided that developing a new, more maintainable code base was the right direction to take going forward. The initial release will be a game with roughly equivalent functionality and play as the current version and this is what will be released as a free upgrade. This will allow for the release of further army packs such as Wolves form the Sea and Oath of Fealty. In addition the new code base will allow for further improvements and enhancements to the basic game and I expect that will be sold as a new release/version.

Chris

[Old_Warrior]

It is particularly illogical since supporting MF Bow costs 1 pt and makes the unit lose its spear PoA. I don't know whether that's intentional either.

If it is, then it would seem to make sense to either allow supporting LF Bow units to retain their spear advantage and cost a point or make LF Bow free but make the unit also forfeit its spear advantage, in line with MF Bow (who are capable of inflicting heavier missile damage). There are other things that could be brought into the mix, like whether supporting bow should be able to disrupt or should the bonus apply to being charged by cavalry only.

In any case, it is currently imbalanced as it is and remains an elephant(with supporting LFBow)-in-the-room issue for some Army Books.

Should be that they are MORE to buy, they do NOT forfeit their Spear advantage. That is like saying because a Tiger bn. had infantry with it that it no longer gets the 88mm penetration power.

Bottom line: if the unit HAS the weapon in the FRONT rank that that is what it uses in IMPACT. The rear rank should not penalize a unit but it should cost MORE.

I personally dislike using the combo units in the game. The Byzantines for instance get Disrupted, Fragmented and Routed in a matter of a couple of turns. Contrast that with a player that buys a cheap bow unit to fire BETWEEN his own units but never exposes them. Folks - what is the difference?

So just make the cost for combined units the same as the Spear unit PLUS the cheap bow unit. That is how I would do it.

[the_iron_duke]

Should be that they are MORE to buy, they do NOT forfeit their Spear advantage. That is like saying because a Tiger bn. had infantry with it that it no longer gets the 88mm penetration power.

Bottom line: if the unit HAS the weapon in the FRONT rank that that is what it uses in IMPACT. The rear rank should not penalize a unit but it should cost MORE.

I personally dislike using the combo units in the game. The Byzantines for instance get Disrupted, Fragmented and Routed in a matter of a couple of turns. Contrast that with a player that buys a cheap bow unit to fire BETWEEN his own units but never exposes them. Folks - what is the difference?

So just make the cost for combined units the same as the Spear unit PLUS the cheap bow unit. That is how I would do it.

Both MF and LF supported bow need to be reviewed. I think the lack of spear PoA for MF bow makes them rather impractical and that would probably be the same if that were also done to LF bow.

However, if neither LF or MF supporting bow have a PoA spear disadvantage and they both cost 1 point then things are unequal as MF supporting bow is more effective and does more damage than LF bow. At the same time, giving a unit a proper Bow, bow* or crossbow also costs 1 point.

I have yet to see a satisfactory solution that addresses both MF and LF supporting bow. Perhaps one solution would be to just have a single type of supporting bow for foot. There are some FoG players that know the rules in intricate detail and so it would be useful if they could set their minds to such issues and offer more possible practical solutions.