Will FOG ever be updated to look more like Sengoku & PS

[darthsmaul]

Wondering since they seem to me to be the same system as FOG will FOG ever get the look of the battlefield more like Pike and Shot or the new Sengoku? I dont like the graphics for FOG and play the miniatures game and would love to see that fixed.

[stockwellpete]

I hope not really as I find larger P+S battlefields a bit confusing to follow. There was some talk of changing the appearance of FOG some time back but I don't know if that is still in the pipeline somewhere. Some of the table-top miniature images we have in FOG look great (especially cavalry) but some are horrible (groups of infantry all in the same bizarre pose or painted exactly the same in garish colours.

[Old_Warrior]

we need larger battlefields in FoG to accommodate the horse archer armies!

[NikiforosFokas]

we need larger battlefields in FoG to accommodate the horse archer armies!

It is enough to make LF moves slower than Cavarly units as it always be the truth in the history of mankind. I wonder if Gengis Khan was able to became legend if the humans were so fast as horses

[stockwellpete]

we need larger battlefields in FoG to accommodate the horse archer armies!

Or the "horse archer" armies should be given some lancers to increase their strength. This would be historically accurate for armies such as the Huns, Avars and others. At the moment these armies are weakly represented in FOG.

[MikeMarchant]

I agree with many of the points, but still the battlefield need to be larger.

It's really very silly when an army deploys from one side of the battlefield to the other, having no flanks. It's even sillier when an army deploys across a corner, again having no flanks. There is no historical accuracy to this at all and it also makes the game unfair.


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

I agree with many of the points, but still the battlefield need to be larger.

It's really very silly when an army deploys from one side of the battlefield to the other, having no flanks. It's even sillier when an army deploys across a corner, again having no flanks. There is no historical accuracy to this at all and it also makes the game unfair.


Best Wishes

Mike

I agree with your point here, Mike, but I think making the battlefield bigger might cause a new problem in that the horse archer armies could have enough space just to stand off and shoot for 10-12 turns before moving into contact. It may be approaching something like historical accuracy but it wouldn't make for much of a game. On the other hand, what we have at the moment is very unsatisfactory because the horse archer armies are very weak in the game and often end up being hunted down by long lines of spearmen whose main concern is to close down space on the battlefield as quickly as possible.

I think there are two things that might help. Firstly, as I have already mentioned, the horse archer armies need to be given the option of selecting lancers, say 4 or 6 in a 500pt army, so that they can punch a hole through an extended enemy line that is seeking to box them in. Huns, Avars, Tatars and Turks did have lancers so this is historically accurate. My understanding is that the reason that these armies don't have lancers in FOG Digital is to do with the army lists used in the table-top version of the game (they don't have them there). Secondly, I think there needs to be tougher movement penalties in the game for units that are "out of command radius". This would force units to group around leadership flags more and make the extended line tactic a cumbersome and risky proposition.

Se

[MikeMarchant]

I agree with many of the points, but still the battlefield need to be larger.

It's really very silly when an army deploys from one side of the battlefield to the other, having no flanks. It's even sillier when an army deploys across a corner, again having no flanks. There is no historical accuracy to this at all and it also makes the game unfair.


Best Wishes

Mike

I agree with your point here, Mike, but I think making the battlefield bigger might cause a new problem in that the horse archer armies could have enough space just to stand off and shoot for 10-12 turns before moving into contact. It may be approaching something like historical accuracy but it wouldn't make for much of a game. On the other hand, what we have at the moment is very unsatisfactory because the horse archer armies are very weak in the game and often end up being hunted down by long lines of spearmen whose main concern is to close down space on the battlefield as quickly as possible.

I think there are two things that might help. Firstly, as I have already mentioned, the horse archer armies need to be given the option of selecting lancers, say 4 or 6 in a 500pt army, so that they can punch a hole through an extended enemy line that is seeking to box them in. Huns, Avars, Tatars and Turks did have lancers so this is historically accurate. My understanding is that the reason that these armies don't have lancers in FOG Digital is to do with the army lists used in the table-top version of the game (they don't have them there). Secondly, I think there needs to be tougher movement penalties in the game for units that are "out of command radius". This would force units to group around leadership flags more and make the extended line tactic a cumbersome and risky proposition.

Se

Yes, I can see the problem of not wanting to engage and not being able to be caught. I've been on the end of the occasional long slog of pike trying to catch Indian bow as it fires and retreats and fires and retreats. It does make for a tedious and futile game. On the other hand (not horse archers, I realise) I've had great success with Gepids against slow heavy armies like the Saxons. If they can't outflank, they can focus on a point and punch through. Their greater speed and mobility is a killer.

Any game of this kind is an uneasy balance between historical accuracy and playability, but I can't help thinking that we're missing something of the historical experience here. In FoG there is no incentive to engage if you have the lighter army. If you can't win the scrap toe to toe, and can't be clever and outflank or punch through, then the worst that can happen is that you play for time and hope for a draw. I assume, that with lighter armies historically, there must have been an imperative to engage. There's no point avoiding contact and backing off constantly if the consequence is the fall of your city or the capture of a key strategic location. I suppose this is equally true for an army drawing up in the corner of the map or on a hill, leaving the other army to have to fight at a huge disadvantage. In historical terms, if it's the aggressor doing this the defending army might just sit back and wait for the aggressor to run out of supplies. Or if it's the defender, the invading army can simply march straight past them to their goal, perhaps detaching a small force to keep an eye on the enemy.

While FoG might deal with the battlefield situation, it provides no context for the battle. And the context, historically, imposes huge constraints on both sides in the battle.

I like the idea of greater penalties for being out of command radius as a way of dealing with this problem, and perhaps it could extend further than just movement, and affect morale too - providing a penalty for being out of command radius, rather then just the lack of a bonus.


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

Yes, I agree with all of that, Mike. The lack of historical context in DAG games really detracts from the tactical subtleties that can come into play in a well-balanced campaign game. I made a War of the Roses campaign where killing opponent's nobles and royal figures was often as important as winning the battle itself.

[Micha63]

Wondering since they seem to me to be the same system as FOG will FOG ever get the look of the battlefield more like Pike and Shot or the new Sengoku? I dont like the graphics for FOG and play the miniatures game and would love to see that fixed.

I hope this will never happen. P and S looks not good for my taste. You see not really units but ugly blocks . And the landscape is grey and not really a hit, dont move this to FOG please.

[TDefender]

I think the OP was just talking about the "visual appeal" of the battlefield and I really can't imagine anyone prefering this:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpres ... incipe.jpg

to this

http://www.ilvideogioco.com/wp-content/ ... hot_01.jpg

and yes FoG does need (also) a strong graphics overhaul

[fogman]

I think the OP was just talking about the "visual appeal" of the battlefield and I really can't imagine anyone prefering this:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpres ... incipe.jpg

to this

http://www.ilvideogioco.com/wp-content/ ... hot_01.jpg

and yes FoG does need (also) a strong graphics overhaul

you're wrong. miniatures are always better and speak to the origins of the game.

[TDefender]

Oh again... talking about the battlefield not the units

[NikiforosFokas]

Does the PS have the ability to add hexes in the battlefield? If yes i agree with change. If not, no. Sorry but for me a tbs game without hexes is like a burger without meat. They exist but i don't want them

[fogman]

Oh again... talking about the battlefield not the units

but the two go together. apart from the square grid in P&S that i don't want, parachuting FoG miniatures onto P&S terrain will make for a strange look. and i like the low hardware requirements of FoG since I happen to be playing it on a 6 year old laptop.

[fogman]

Any game of this kind is an uneasy balance between historical accuracy and playability, but I can't help thinking that we're missing something of the historical experience here. In FoG there is no incentive to engage if you have the lighter army. If you can't win the scrap toe to toe, and can't be clever and outflank or punch through, then the worst that can happen is that you play for time and hope for a draw. I assume, that with lighter armies historically, there must have been an imperative to engage. There's no point avoiding contact and backing off constantly if the consequence is the fall of your city or the capture of a key strategic location.

a lighter army will not engage a heavy army except in an ambush situation. see the jewish wars where the jews were cornered into a fatal siege by titus, and where earlier they routed the syrian legions by ambushing their line of march.

I suppose this is equally true for an army drawing up in the corner of the map or on a hill, leaving the other army to have to fight at a huge disadvantage. In historical terms, if it's the aggressor doing this the defending army might just sit back and wait for the aggressor to run out of supplies. Or if it's the defender, the invading army can simply march straight past them to their goal, perhaps detaching a small force to keep an eye on the enemy.

a similar situation occurred before platae where the heavier and slower greek armies were weary of the persian cavalry and the persians were weary of the greek heavy infantry. it was the supply situation that finally forced a battle.

historically battles were rare events. commanders were very cautious in risking everything and attritional warfare often win wars. the romans learned it during their confrontation with hannibal thanks to fabius maximus 'cunctator' (the delayer, whose name gave rise to the 'fabian strategy'). the french under bertrand du guesclin were also very successful in that regard during the hundred years war.

While FoG might deal with the battlefield situation, it provides no context for the battle. And the context, historically, imposes huge constraints on both sides in the battle.
Mike

the issue is that the game is unrestricted in terms of terrain and matchups. pitched battles only occurred when two sides are similarly matched; any other situation and battle will be refused, which is not possible in the game unless one can win initiative and have favourable terrain. but i find it ironic that people routinely complain about historical aspects of the game and at the same time running battles among non historical armies, which is the source of many mismatches if one remembers that neighbouring polities will tend to have similar armies for any particular period, or will build armies to effectively counter their neighbours'.

[MikeMarchant]

Any game of this kind is an uneasy balance between historical accuracy and playability, but I can't help thinking that we're missing something of the historical experience here. In FoG there is no incentive to engage if you have the lighter army. If you can't win the scrap toe to toe, and can't be clever and outflank or punch through, then the worst that can happen is that you play for time and hope for a draw. I assume, that with lighter armies historically, there must have been an imperative to engage. There's no point avoiding contact and backing off constantly if the consequence is the fall of your city or the capture of a key strategic location.

a lighter army will not engage a heavy army except in an ambush situation. see the jewish wars where the jews were cornered into a fatal siege by titus, and where earlier they routed the syrian legions by ambushing their line of march.

I suppose this is equally true for an army drawing up in the corner of the map or on a hill, leaving the other army to have to fight at a huge disadvantage. In historical terms, if it's the aggressor doing this the defending army might just sit back and wait for the aggressor to run out of supplies. Or if it's the defender, the invading army can simply march straight past them to their goal, perhaps detaching a small force to keep an eye on the enemy.

a similar situation occurred before platae where the heavier and slower greek armies were weary of the persian cavalry and the persians were weary of the greek heavy infantry. it was the supply situation that finally forced a battle.

historically battles were rare events. commanders were very cautious in risking everything and attritional warfare often win wars. the romans learned it during their confrontation with hannibal thanks to fabius maximus 'cunctator' (the delayer, whose name gave rise to the 'fabian strategy'). the french under bertrand du guesclin were also very successful in that regard during the hundred years war.

While FoG might deal with the battlefield situation, it provides no context for the battle. And the context, historically, imposes huge constraints on both sides in the battle.
Mike

the issue is that the game is unrestricted in terms of terrain and matchups. pitched battles only occurred when two sides are similarly matched; any other situation and battle will be refused, which is not possible in the game unless one can win initiative and have favourable terrain. but i find it ironic that people routinely complain about historical aspects of the game and at the same time running battles among non historical armies, which is the source of many mismatches if one remembers that neighbouring polities will tend to have similar armies for any particular period, or will build armies to effectively counter their neighbours'.

I suppose it comes down to what you think a FoG battle is representing. Warfare in any period consists of a great deal of manoeuvre, raiding, feinting, organising logistics, trying to disrupt lines of supply, and many other things, but to my mind FoG isn't about all those many other things that make up a military campaign, it's about a set piece taking place against that background; a set piece where both sides have something to compel them to engage on the battlefield.


Best Wishes

Mike