Slitherine

First of all, as an owner of both FoG and Pike & Shot, seeing this in development makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and is something I've been looking forward to since 2014 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3722954

One quick question about FoG2, will there be an option to scale the models down and maybe have more of them per unit?

As I said back in the old thread linked above, the choice of bigger sprites for the original FoG always made it feel more like a skirmish rather than an epic battle - but the abstracted P&S unit graphics gave the mass effect that I've always thoughts suits ancients.

I'm probably biased because my miniature gaming experience was always at 5-6mm and other people obviously prefer 15mm or even 25mm.

The graphics engine will obviously dictate what you can do, and staying with the big models wouldn't be a deal breaker for me at all - but if the unit graphics could be smaller or there was mod support to be able to do so, it would be absolutely awesome.

NZgunner wrote:One quick question about FoG2, will there be an option to scale the models down and maybe have more of them per unit?[

The engine maximum is 16 models per unit. A great deal of low level stuff would need to be changed to allow more.

oh well, 25mm gaming it is then, but I bet it will still be fun

but are you planning to utilize all 16, or some units will be even smaller?

JaM2013 wrote:but are you planning to utilize all 16, or some units will be even smaller?

We are operating on a scale of 1 figure = 60 men (in 4 ranks of 15 files) when the normal representational scale has not been over-ridden by a scenario script. Obviously historically, different formations were in use for different troop types.

Thus a pike unit has 16 figures (4 ranks of 4) and represents 960 men. A Roman cohort is 8 figures (2 ranks of 4), representing 480 men. A Gallic warband is 12 figures (3 ranks of 4), representing 720 men. A heavy cavalry unit 4 figures (in 1 rank), representing 240 men. A light horse unit is 2 figures (in 1 rank) representing 120 men. Light foot are 4 figures (in one rank) representing 240 men.

Hi Richard,
In the picture of Macedonian vs Indian I think I see Light cavalry riding white horses vs dark horses for hvy cavalry, as an additional distinction, right?

Aryaman wrote:Hi Richard,
In the picture of Macedonian vs Indian I think I see Light cavalry riding white horses vs dark horses for hvy cavalry, as an additional distinction, right?

Hi Iñaki,

That is possible, but I don't recall whether it is consistent. Anyway it is pretty easy to distinguish them.

The main question is.... casualties are going to be showed in units removing dead "soldiers" (like in the Tin Soldiers games from matrix and the infamous hand of god) or they stay and only "skulls" are going to be the visual info about casualties???

I see interesting use colours in horses to diference diferent cavalry types same with diferent colours in units.

PD: pike units are going to be showed like in P&s or we can see first line of pike guys with pikes in position, 2nd and 3rd line adding more pikes and only last line with pikes aiming sky???

How many figures will represent the Roman legion ?

Scutarii wrote:The main question is.... casualties are going to be showed in units removing dead "soldiers" (like in the Tin Soldiers games from matrix and the infamous hand of god) or they stay and only "skulls" are going to be the visual info about casualties???

Not only are they removed but they fall over dead, men from the rear ranks shuffle forward to replace them, and the bodies remain lying on the battlefield for the rest of the battle.

PD: pike units are going to be showed like in P&s or we can see first line of pike guys with pikes in position, 2nd and 3rd line adding more pikes and only last line with pikes aiming sky???

All of the units are fully animated. The men do whatever the situation calls for. Different ranks do different things in different circumstances. If a unit is fighting enemy in more than one direction, men turn to face each direction. When they are disrupted their formation becomes disrupted. When they are in square they form square. When they shoot, they shoot, and the arrows, javelins, sling stones, ballista bolts ore stone-thrower stones fly. When legionaries charge they throw their pila. Men thrust with their spears, cut with their swords etc.

Mirek69 wrote:How many figures will represent the Roman legion ?

1 figure represents 60 men. 8 represents a cohort, and so on.

And the manipuli of triarii? just one figure? how is represented the manipular legion?

Aryaman wrote:And the manipuli of triarii? just one figure? how is represented the manipular legion?

Individual Maniples are really below the representaional unit scale of the game, which is the number of men that would deploy on one square approx 60 metres wide. Thus we have units of hastati/principes representing 2 maniples each of hastati and principes, thus 480 men (8 figures) and units of 4 maniples of triarii, thus 240 men (4 figures).

Essentially a map square is the width of a cohort, so we are compelled to represent hastati/principes as if they were organised in cohorts, otherwise they would be unable to withstand the units of armies that were not divided into such small units.

Ok.
480 men (8 figures) = 1 cohort
1 Roman Legion = 10 or 11 cohort

rbodleyscott wrote:

Aryaman wrote:And the manipuli of triarii? just one figure? how is represented the manipular legion?

Individual Maniples are really below the representaional unit scale of the game, which is the number of men that would deploy on one square approx 60 metres wide. Thus we have units of hastati/principes representing 2 maniples each of hastati and principes, thus 480 men (8 figures) and units of 4 maniples of triarii, thus 240 men (4 figures).

Essentially a map square is the width of a cohort, so we are compelled to represent hastati/principes as if they were organised in cohorts, otherwise they would be unable to withstand the units of armies that were not divided into such small units.

Ok, then a manipular legion will have 5 units of hastati/principes, but the triarii don't match, they should be 2.5, so you made 2 or 3?
And what about velites?

Aryaman wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Aryaman wrote:And the manipuli of triarii? just one figure? how is represented the manipular legion?

Individual Maniples are really below the representaional unit scale of the game, which is the number of men that would deploy on one square approx 60 metres wide. Thus we have units of hastati/principes representing 2 maniples each of hastati and principes, thus 480 men (8 figures) and units of 4 maniples of triarii, thus 240 men (4 figures).

Essentially a map square is the width of a cohort, so we are compelled to represent hastati/principes as if they were organised in cohorts, otherwise they would be unable to withstand the units of armies that were not divided into such small units.

Ok, then a manipular legion will have 5 units of hastati/principes, but the triarii don't match, they should be 2.5, so you made 2 or 3?
And what about velites?

Well you don't "buy" a "legion" as such, so we don't have to worry about 2.5 units of triarii.

In terms of proportions the lists have twice as many units of hastati/principes as triarii. However, the lists work like P&S lists, and don't force these exact proportion so it can vary a bit. Especially as there are also veteran hastati/principes units, and raw ones, but for game efficiency reasons we don't have separate veteran and raw triarii units. Most players want flexibility, those who want exact historical accuracy can enforce the standard proportions on themselves, as has been done in the historical scenarios.

For velites the lists allow the same number of units as hastati/principes. This allows them to cover the full front of the legion, when the first two lines (hastati and principes) are deployed as a chequerboard. (My preferred interpretation).

Ok, thanks for the explanation Richard, btw I recall that in Pike and shot no player deployed in chequeboard formation as it was at a clear disadvantage over a linear formation, does this have changed in fog2?

Aryaman wrote:Ok, thanks for the explanation Richard, btw I recall that in Pike and shot no player deployed in chequeboard formation as it was at a clear disadvantage over a linear formation, does this have changed in fog2?

As there is much less shooting, probably.

Nice, sounds much better than what i expect, the animation changes is going to be a great improvement compared with FOG.

Something i think is... in old FOG was the rear support bonus, you know, heavy infantry units forming a combat line receive a bonus if behind them was another heavy infantry unit... but now with squares and not hexes this is not possible in the moment you cant leave holes... and you need same number of troops in rear to provide support VS half number in hexes system.... we are going to see this changed??? remove the bonus or change it to made be active when the unit is flanked by other heavy infantry units???

Other thing i want see is improvements in medium infantry, for me the most useless troop type in old FOG, maybe give it the ability to avoid combat when they are placed in open terrain and when they are in non open terrain they can have a defensive bonus...

Thanks.

Scutarii wrote:Something i think is... in old FOG was the rear support bonus, you know, heavy infantry units forming a combat line receive a bonus if behind them was another heavy infantry unit... but now with squares and not hexes this is not possible in the moment you cant leave holes... and you need same number of troops in rear to provide support VS half number in hexes system.... we are going to see this changed??? remove the bonus or change it to made be active when the unit is flanked by other heavy infantry units???

There is no rear support bonus as such, but heavy foot get an automatic +1 cohesion test modifier for being heavy foot. There are however, other incentives to have a partial second line to deal with breakthroughs, or follow up successes.

Other thing i want see is improvements in medium infantry, for me the most useless troop type in old FOG, maybe give it the ability to avoid combat when they are placed in open terrain and when they are in non open terrain they can have a defensive bonus...

Medium Foot has been divided into Bowmen and Medium Foot.

Mounted troops no longer get an impact POA bonus vs Medium Foot in the open (they do vs bowmen and mob). This means that Medium Foot (e.g. Thureophoroi, Thracians, Spanish scutarii, Italian foot) are perfectly capable of fighting in the line of battle in the open. They do, however, get a -1 cohesion test modifier vs heavy foot or mounted if they lose a close combat in the open.

Given that HF get an automatic +1 modifier, this does make MF less resilient - but only if they lose - their POAs are identical to identically classified Heavy Foot. But they are not Disordered by rough going, and are only disordered (not severely disordered) by difficult going. (There is no Uneven terrain).

Overall MF have become much more useful.

--------------------------------------------------

It is worth noting that FOG2 is not in any way an evolution of FOG1, it is a complete reboot directly from the tabletop rules. The changes from the tabletop rules that have been made to make the game work well on the computer are different from those in FOG1.

Moreover, the POA chart does not always slavishly follow the tabletop rules. For example, the maximum armour advantage a unit can have is 50 POAs (i.e. half a FOG1 POA) and armoured troops only get 25 POA (a quarter of a FOG1 POA) vs Protected troops. This is much more realistic than the previous level of armour advantage, which was only such a massive advantage because there was no way of having partial POAs in the tabletop rules. However, it exaggerated the benefits of armour to the point where it was a no brainer to take the armoured option if available, and some troop-type - e.g. Protected spearmen - were much weaker than they realistically should be.

As a result of the changes to armour advantage, the Pike vs Legionary matchup, which previously pretty much relied on the Romans having a whole POA for armour advantage, needed rebalancing and hence other changes to the POA chart have been made to make this work.

We are very pleased with the result.