Changes needed to some nations/mechanics

[Witan]

I have tested now some nations and i must say, that there are nations, that have barely no chance to win a battle. Especially the Ligurians but also some more minor nations. But even horse archer nations, like the parthians or other steepe people have no real chance to win a battle with the actual mechanics, although realms like the pathians did kind of well.


It is also kind of annoying that many minor nations use massed javelins as generic infantery. I know there isn't much knowlege about some army types, but i think it is not a solution to give so many minor nation that unit type as standart infantery.

Also i think the ammunition limit for only 5 shots is a big problem, ecpecially since it is really difficlut to weaken enemy troops even with a lot of ranged units. In this case i would recomend to make it a bit easier to weaken an enemy with focussed fire.


I really ask you to consider some of my change ideas.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Steppe armies can actually be pretty effective, but only on relatively open terrain - and that, I think is as it should be. The ammunition amount is not five shots but five rounds of fire, which encompasses multiple shots per man. Finally, even minor factions like the Ligurians can win battles - but you do have to work for it. The generic javelinmen may be terrible, but they're also terribly cheap. You can use their great numbers to get flank attacks. Also, being medium foot, they suffer no terrain malus in rough ground, and you can definitely use that to your advantage against heavy infantry armies. Some factions are simply better, with the flexibility to operate in all kinds of terrain. Some are better on the steppes, some in the hills. It's my understanding that the game isn't designed to be fully balanced in the sense that every faction is just as good as another.

Just my two cents, though, I'm not a dev or anything.

[Witan]

Steppe armies can actually be pretty effective, but only on relatively open terrain - and that, I think is as it should be.

In this case, i can only refer to my older post in this forum about steppe hordes... in a battle on open terrain i focussed with 5 horse archers on one unit of the enemy, for more rounds, but it didnt weaken it. Later, my cataphracts got killed because, my horse archers didnt make their job. This is why i suggest to make it a bit easier for missle troops to weaken enemy units.

The ammunition amount is not five shots but five rounds of fire, which encompasses multiple shots per man.

Sorry, that was my fault. I am not a native english speaker, so i made a mistake here. Naturally, i mean it like you said here, but in my opinion this is not enough ammunizion OR it should be a bit easier to waken an enemy.

Finally, even minor factions like the Ligurians can win battles - but you do have to work for it.

That may be true, but even when this is the case, it is really embarrassing to see so many nations using javelinmen as generic infantery. Also the troop diversity of the ligurians is really really small, with only 2 useable units, both javelinmen (not mentioned the real small amount of cavallery). I am not into ligurian army (maybe there is no real knowlege about, but i doubt they only used the javelin as weapon.

It's my understanding that the game isn't designed to be fully balanced in the sense that every faction is just as good as another.

I really like this way of thinking, it makes FoG2 kind of special in todays gameworld. But how i daid, i do not think, that steppe archers work like intended.

[hjc]

I really like this way of thinking, it makes FoG2 kind of special in todays gameworld.

And that's how a good wargame should be - to aim for fairness of representation rather than "all sides are equal".

I've always thought that a victory with some armies (no matter the historical era) are more prestigious when it's a difficult/poor army. In a tournament I would award bonus points for such wins. Or, inflict the "crap" armies (Richard's turn of phrase!) on the best players, as a handicap.

[Witan]

And that's how a good wargame should be - to aim for fairness of representation rather than "all sides are equal".

I've always thought that a victory with some armies (no matter the historical era) are more prestigious when it's a difficult/poor army. In a tournament I would award bonus points for such wins. Or, inflict the "crap" armies (Richard's turn of phrase!) on the best players, as a handicap.

I am absolutely with you! It is sad to see that many games only looking for equal sides, even now the paradox interactive team, which made my favorite global strategy games.

[GiveWarAchance]

And that's how a good wargame should be - to aim for fairness of representation rather than "all sides are equal".

I've always thought that a victory with some armies (no matter the historical era) are more prestigious when it's a difficult/poor army. In a tournament I would award bonus points for such wins. Or, inflict the "crap" armies (Richard's turn of phrase!) on the best players, as a handicap.

I am absolutely with you! It is sad to see that many games only looking for equal sides, even now the paradox interactive team, which made my favorite global strategy games.

Yes this is good. Some armies should be stronger than others cause it was like that for real. Another handicap maybe is making the stronger armies smaller with less purchasing points at start.

I tried playing as the Romans and got whipped by the Arabs (ai) who were using only javelin teams and cavalry, and now I'm getting whipped again as the Romans against a Seleucid army human player who is expert I think at this game. To the credit of the AI, both whippings are going the same. The Romans seem very weak against javelins, cavalry and melee units. Anyways, my point is that even the brutally powerful Romans are fairly weak unless you have considerable skills at using them effectively and can somehow keep your troops well away from javelins.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well, Roman infantry is arguably the best in the game. They have high moral, good armor, and a ferocious impact. So any infantry clash in the open is likely to go their way. As you say though, they can struggle; in my experience, the main difficulty is the high cost of their units. This can lead to the whole line being outflanked if you're not careful. If, playing as a Roman player, you can close into contact before your line starts to get flanked, you're likely to punch straight through and slaughter the enemy before their numbers can tell.

[GiveWarAchance]

Well, Roman infantry is arguably the best in the game. They have high moral, good armor, and a ferocious impact. So any infantry clash in the open is likely to go their way. As you say though, they can struggle; in my experience, the main difficulty is the high cost of their units. This can lead to the whole line being outflanked if you're not careful. If, playing as a Roman player, you can close into contact before your line starts to get flanked, you're likely to punch straight through and slaughter the enemy before their numbers can tell.

Sounds like I just need a lot more practice with Romans. I had that problem of being outnumbered/outflanked but the real thing that kills me as Romans is they always chase skirmishers into the enemy line and end up surrounded on 3 sides by the enemy and get wiped out unit by unit that way. I lose about 30 casualties per attack and get 3 of those per turn on each Hastati and do a paltry 2 to 3 points of damage to the enemy in return. I have the Triarii in reserve and they had to fan out to handle problems like flanking cavalry & elephants and skirmish horse units but they aren't strong enough face heavy cavalry in open combat. Another problem I have is the Roman units are 1/2 size to 1/3 size of enemy units like Hastati are about 450 troops vs nearly 1000 in a pike unit. Triarii are only one thin line so only useful as reserve to avoid them getting wiped out. The one good thing about Romans is they have a few useful javelin teams, some auxiliary units like an archer unit and a slinger unit and one barbarian warband unit that adds some backbone. Anyways, if you have any advice or think I misunderstand how to use this army, then please help me with using the Romans.

[the_iron_duke]

The Ligurian javelinmen aren't great individually, but their cheapness means quantity. If experience of playing FoG I is anything to go by, then one needs to use their numerical superiority advantage in a tactical way, though, rather than viewing them as more troops to throw into the meatgrinder to replace the front-rank fighters as they are cut down. While bland in composition, such armies can be tactically quite interesting to play with, as the way to use them most effectively is not a straightforward smashing of armies together in a frontal assault. I've used such armies many times in FoG I and I don't think they are necessarily any less effective than other types of armies to find success with.

The only armies I didn't particularly fancy my chances with in FoG I were armies with very high proportions of light troops, as they can end up getting pushed off the map. Horse-archer armies like the Mongols in FoG I had plenty of Cavalry - as opposed to Light Horse - horse-archers, which made them feel a lot more substantial. The Parthians, on the other hand, have lots of Light Horse horse-archers, as they did in FoG I. Certainly in Fog I, I didn't rate the Parthians as an easy army to find success with.

Missile combat, among other things, is a little different in FoG II, so I can't comment on whether it's different in this game. Also, playing on a wider map would also benefit horse-archer armies.

The worst army, in terms of winning with, in my opinion in FoG I has also made an appearance in FoG II - the early Numidians/Moors. In a FoG II medium game, they have only eight units available for selection that aren't light troops. The later Numidian/Moor army has some other unit types available and looks okay.

Of the hundreds of armies available in FoG I, I'd say there were probably only a very small handful of armies I wouldn't particularly feel I'd have a chance to do well with, and it happens that a couple of them, described above, are in the Rise of Rome army book. There are more that are a bit one-dimensional, and great for certain terrains and not others, but that's probably a reflection of historical reality.

[Witan]

Anyways, i would be very interessed in a response of the devs to the topic Missile combat and changes to horse archer nations like pathians?

[rbodleyscott]

Anyways, i would be very interessed in a response of the devs to the topic Missile combat and changes to horse archer nations like pathians?

We are currently happy with the overall balance with respect to missile combat, including horse archers. The Parthians are a special case because the horse archers are all light horse with no melee capability. We need to take another look at the list - we won't reclassify most of the horse archers but there may be more other stuff added to the mix.

[Witan]

We are currently happy with the overall balance with respect to missile combat, including horse archers. The Parthians are a special case because the horse archers are all light horse with no melee capability. We need to take another look at the list - we won't reclassify most of the horse archers but there may be more other stuff added to the mix.

But isn't it nowdays to hard to weaken an enemy with missile combat? How i said, i had no chance to weaken enemy roman flank troops with 5 horse archers over the whole battle. I dont think, that should be the case...

[rbodleyscott]

We are currently happy with the overall balance with respect to missile combat, including horse archers. The Parthians are a special case because the horse archers are all light horse with no melee capability. We need to take another look at the list - we won't reclassify most of the horse archers but there may be more other stuff added to the mix.

But isn't it nowdays to hard to weaken an enemy with missile combat? How i said, i had no chance to weaken enemy roman flank troops with 5 horse archers over the whole battle. I dont think, that should be the case...

I think the Parthians are a worst case scenario because they don't have any non-light archers. We are looking into it, and may make balance changes in due course if necessary. We won't be rushing into anything, however.

We also have to make sure that we don't make changes that make other horse archers armies that will appear in later DLCs overpowered.

[TDefender]

The issue is not just about the Parthians scenario, it's almost impossible to weaken enemies with every kind of light unit, in my humble opinion this is really an issue which needs some revision.

[GiveWarAchance]

I had a battle Spain vs Numidia/Moors and they were heavy on javelin horses and foot javelin teams with a small line of troops way back.
After a long struggle of chasing the badguys, they came in with a flank attack of a 10 units or so from off board. I managed to win the battle thanks to my own javelins, slings and cavalry while my troops finished off their troops.
The horse javelin teams are very hard to chase down. Without a couple of cavalry going after them, I would have had no answer to light horse other than my foot javelins and slings were coming across the battlefield to help out after finishing off the enemy javelin teams. Amazingly my cavalry and foot troops managed to wear down the light cavalry and the light horse managed to surround and rout 1 or 2 of my infantry. The losses were about 1570 spanish vs 3500 badguys smitten.
Next battle in the campaign is a protect baggage wagons battle while moving past some forest area.

[rbodleyscott]

The issue is not just about the Parthians scenario, it's almost impossible to weaken enemies with every kind of light unit, in my humble opinion this is really an issue which needs some revision.

It would be if we wanted them to be able to significantly weaken non-light infantry units, which we don't.

They are much more effective at weakening cavalry.

If you want to see a horse archer army (commanded by the AI) win a battle, watch today's TWITCH stream recording.

[hjc]

The issue is not just about the Parthians scenario, it's almost impossible to weaken enemies with every kind of light unit, in my humble opinion this is really an issue which needs some revision.

Impossible to weaken entire armies perhaps. But last night I fought as Greece against Macedonia, and I routed an Elephant with lancers and missile fire. This made a significant contribution to the overall result. I also like to weaken an enemy unit I can see as potentially problematic (either due to their position or match-up) and while it doesn't seem much at the start of the battle, later on it shows since the unit breaks sooner, due to commencing a melee in a reduced state.

Light units can often cause disruption to the enemy, then I move them out of the way and charge them. They're one step closer to being broken. If my plans work, that is

[Witan]

Light units can often cause disruption to the enemy, then I move them out of the way and charge them. They're one step closer to being broken. If my plans work, that is

The problem is, that light units are only good in disrupting elephants and cavalry. If you play against an infantery nation, you have nearly no chance to disrupt enemy units with your missile troops.
After the opinion of the devs that works like intended, but in my mind, it is really a bit to difficult. Besides parthain and steppe people, especially for nations like india, that use massive amounts of missile troops as main line.

[rbodleyscott]

Light units can often cause disruption to the enemy, then I move them out of the way and charge them. They're one step closer to being broken. If my plans work, that is

The problem is, that light units are only good in disrupting elephants and cavalry. If you play against an infantery nation, you have nearly no chance to disrupt enemy units with your missile troops.
After the opinion of the devs that works like intended, but in my mind, it is really a bit to difficult. Besides parthain and steppe people, especially for nations like india, that use massive amounts of missile troops as main line.

Believe me, Indians have no problem shooting the enemy to hell. Try them.

[hjc]

Witan, I must admit I wouldn't enjoy commanding an army primarily composed of light troops.