Slitherine

Are there any improvements in the campaign game planed? In Sengoku Jidei it was just capturing provinces.

DirkW wrote:Are there any improvements in the campaign game planed? In Sengoku Jidei it was just capturing provinces.

Indeed.

For FOG2 we have abandoned the concept of map campaigns, and instead implement campaigns as a sequence of linked battles. Thus we keep the good part (the battles, with core forces gaining experience from battle to battle) but dispense with the less interesting part. This has also allowed us to create more variety in the battles.

But I found there was at least some form of emersion by having a map. Now this is abstracted like in an "ordinary" table top game. I can´t say that i am happy with that, right now.

Do you mean a campaign like in Ultimate General Civil War?

Searry wrote:Do you mean a campaign like in Ultimate General Civil War?

I am afraid I am not familiar with that game.

What decisions, orders are available from battle to battle ?

Mirek69 wrote:What decisions, orders are available from battle to battle ?

I can't reveal that at this stage.

OK

Ummm with the nature of the combats (from my experience from old FOG) battles are to much orientated to masacre enemy... diference is how much troops you lose before the other army cracks.

I remember as a good system the Alexander-Cesar titles from Tin Soldiers... something similar here could be interesting but using FOG army list system... for example you start with average-poor troops and with victories you "win" veteran units... even elite, expanding your army customization ability (new troops, buy mercenary units...).

Let see how work the campaign feature and if could be used for human VS human.

But I found there was at least some form of emersion by having a map. Now this is abstracted like in an "ordinary" table top game. I can´t say that i am happy with that, right now.

Yeah - I liked the map too. Despite the system's simplicity, I thought it was more realistic than most "serious" strategic wargames, thanks to the hard logistic limits and the ability of the weaker side to evade a pitched battle. The ping-ponging may have been frustrating for some players, but it reflected the ebb and flow of a lot of 17th century campaigns. I was looking forward to seeing how you might develop it.

I was hoping for a Total War like map with diplomacy and such but seems I have to wait further.

In my opinion, the "map campaign" (even the sandbox one) is interesting if the game encompasses just a brief time in history or, at least, a small amount of changes in the way to wage war in that region; so, pike and shot is perfect and even sengoku jidai is ok with the "map campaign", and i love them, i always play them.

However, considering that FOG II (being named from the tabletop itself) will have army lists from rome, to anglo saxons, vikings, communal italians, 100 ywar armies and early renaissance, i think that a "sort of Steel Panthers random campaign" (only linked battles, maybe with some text choice) is an excellent idea.

I don´t thing that FOG II will have any other armies than that of antiquity from 280 BC to 30 BC (stated in the game stats). So for them a map of the mediterranian world would be possible.

This fog ii will indeed have only classic armies, but it is my opinion that, maybe, new army lists will show up following fog tabletop.

First, this game looks absolutely fantastic. Probably one of the only instabuys on the horizon. Can't wait!

One question--I've read about the campaign game and the sandbox campaigns, but if people want to create their own campaign systems will it be possible to save an army at the end of a battle and import it for use in a subsequent battle (after editing to reflect replacements, etc.)? If we have this feature (or something like it), people can create whatever campaign systems they'd like, which I think would add a lot to the game.

76mm wrote:One question--I've read about the campaign game and the sandbox campaigns, but if people want to create their own campaign systems will it be possible to save an army at the end of a battle and import it for use in a subsequent battle (after editing to reflect replacements, etc.)? If we have this feature (or something like it), people can create whatever campaign systems they'd like, which I think would add a lot to the game.

You mean to allow the campaign strategic part to be done on paper?

We don't currently have such a feature. It would not be a simple thing to implement, but I can see it would be useful. One day perhaps.

Meanwhile, it is relatively easy to set up custom campaigns using the in-game system - it just requires cloning one of the existing historical campaigns and editing a text file. No programming required.

Thanks for your quick response...

What I mean is that there are probably almost as many preferred campaign formats/structures/features as there are players. While some players will undoubtedly prefer whatever is included in the game, others might want to use some sort of paper, system, still others might want to use this game to resolve tactical battles generated by some other strategic level game (board or computer), and yet others might want to create their own in-depth strategic layer.

In my view, the most important feature for being able to (i) save formations after tactical battles; (ii) edit them to reflect any necessary changes, or the results of combat at the strategic level not gamed at the tactical level; and (iii) importing those units back into tactical battles when needed.

When you say that when you can set up custom campaigns, does that mean that you can add units, change maps, or what.

Thanks again for any feedback on this issue.

76mm wrote:When you say that when you can set up custom campaigns, does that mean that you can add units, change maps, or what.

You can set up multi-battle campaigns that work in the same way as the built-in campaigns - these do not use maps, but consist of a series of connected battles with strategic decisions in between. The player's core units progress from one battle to the next, gaining experience.

As you say, this is only one way of doing a campaign, and there are many others.

The facilities you propose could be created, but would require alterations to the engine. There is already a very long wishlist for additions to the engine, over which we as developers do not have direct control, so I would not expect it to be possible to implement these features any time soon.

Thanks again for your response. Can you tell us whether the game data will be stored in some sort of XML format which would allow players to develop these tools on their own?

I'm not 100% sure what 76mm is looking for, but for a "continuing campaign" outside the system I think a snapshot of all your units after a battle, showing their state of moral at the end plus casualties would be helpful, be it an export or if the info is readily found in the saved game files or whatnot.