Slitherine

And if so, why? Discuss.

I think easier. Die roll results are more stable (using bell curve and not 6 sides dice).
Detailed tool tip so much more helpful than FoG1

Yes, I agree that is one thing that will make the game easier to get to grips with. One thing that will make it harder though is the much more intricate terrain that we have now from the random map generator.

True. Terrain is key and people really need to learn how they work for certain situations and units.

I think the ammunition rule and long/short range shooting makes handling your missile units a bit more difficult now. In FOG1 you could just fire away merrily for the whole battle without penalty, now you have to think about how to get the best out of your first five shots with a unit.

I think this game will be harder to "master"

Its harder to flank/ get in the rear, and when you do its not necessarily devastating.

FOG1 with the dice rolls allowed you to often get decisive swings of fortune on the local level where you could immediately capitalize on , especially with the more maneuverable units in that game.

Battle lines stay firmer here and if you commit all your troops, suddenly you basically became a spectator, there nothing left to maneuver. Its all about the troops now, not you! Which means you need more of a plan to stick with.

With the armies and deployment zone changes, you cant count on securing flank on the edge of the world, or engage in massive mechanised envelopements ( thru double moves)

This might sound contrary to the above but new players to FOG1 tend to get smoked in the DAG battles, until they learn the tricks of the trade.
In FOG2, sure there are blow outs with different skill but it seems players less experienced generally do better. The FOG2 mechanics seem to reward more historical play , if they use a basic solid battle line, cavalry on flanks to defend same and skirmishes up, well, that reasonably sound and will generally be effective.

There are less "tricks" ( in battle and even more importantly, the gamemanship of the army building in FOG1) in FOG2 so it much harder to devise a plan that will work versus an equally experienced foe IMHO

So, IMHO, sharper initial learning curve in FOG1, but one can rapidly close the gap if you play enough. Less obvious ways to win versus a symmetrical foe/opponent's skill in FOG2.
( and if you want to be a FOG1 hater, you can claim the game was 100% about luck)

TheGrayMouser wrote: Battle lines stay firmer here...

I've also noticed this in FOG 2, a very welcome development in my book.

TheGrayMouser wrote:... Less obvious ways to win versus a symmetrical foe/opponent's skill in FOG2...

My main difficult at the moment, I still have to learn when to advance and when to wait the enemy approach.
Sometimes the wrong charge can open your line or give the flank to the enemy, also the light troops are pretty annoying.

At this point no, FOG II is more "predictable" in the results area and even when is not imposible see extreme results but are less common, apart something that in FOG I means unit broken in FOG 2 II is not necesary finish in same result.

Maybe for me the worst thing in FOG II is that i have a hard time adapting to squares because many times i cant perform very well my old tactics to force routed enemies disapear... in FOG II units scape more than in old FOG I.

Other point i dont control well is elevation in terrain, is very hard (specially in desert maps) notice elevations in terrain.

Scutarii wrote:Other point i dont control well is elevation in terrain, is very hard (specially in desert maps) notice elevations in terrain.

Yes, I sometimes think it would be good to be able to select a unit, then a hot-key to get their eye-level view of the terrain around them.

Failing that, mousing over squares brings up information on the elevation of a square.

jomni wrote:True. Terrain is key and people really need to learn how they work for certain situations and units.

When I was first playing I was lazy about the terrain. I played a couple of battles where I tried to carefully make use of it because I was massively outnumbered, and it really made the difference. Not just the obvious 'stand on top of a hill!' but 'make sure your line stops advancing when you have the maximum amount of open ground for your phalanx'.

TheGrayMouser wrote:I think this game will be harder to "master"

Its harder to flank/ get in the rear, and when you do its not necessarily devastating.

FOG1 with the dice rolls allowed you to often get decisive swings of fortune on the local level where you could immediately capitalize on , especially with the more maneuverable units in that game.

Battle lines stay firmer here and if you commit all your troops, suddenly you basically became a spectator, there nothing left to maneuver. Its all about the troops now, not you! Which means you need more of a plan to stick with.

With the armies and deployment zone changes, you cant count on securing flank on the edge of the world, or engage in massive mechanised envelopements ( thru double moves)

This might sound contrary to the above but new players to FOG1 tend to get smoked in the DAG battles, until they learn the tricks of the trade.
In FOG2, sure there are blow outs with different skill but it seems players less experienced generally do better. The FOG2 mechanics seem to reward more historical play , if they use a basic solid battle line, cavalry on flanks to defend same and skirmishes up, well, that reasonably sound and will generally be effective.

There are less "tricks" ( in battle and even more importantly, the gamemanship of the army building in FOG1) in FOG2 so it much harder to devise a plan that will work versus an equally experienced foe IMHO

So, IMHO, sharper initial learning curve in FOG1, but one can rapidly close the gap if you play enough. Less obvious ways to win versus a symmetrical foe/opponent's skill in FOG2.
( and if you want to be a FOG1 hater, you can claim the game was 100% about luck)

I haven't been playing FoG2 enough to draw any firm conclusions, but on the face of it, I'd agree with TheGrayMouser.
The whole thing is a bit more predictable than FoG1, which means you have to have a plan (not necessarily a good one), whereas in FoG1 you could pretty much just fling your army at the enemy, gain an advantage in a local spot, and then exploit from there.
Or in my case, fling your army at the enemy, roll a bunch of 1's, resign and start a new game.
Yes, weird stuff still happens but at a much reduced rate. And generally it doesn't affect the whole line.

So does this make it harder to master than FoG1?
Not necessarily, if you have a basic grasp of ancient battle-tactics (such as they were).
But it does mean you have to pay a lot more attention to what you're doing, especially concerning ZOCs and how to use them properly.
Treat it like an RTS, and you will get hammered.
I also think (again, not enough experience yet) that it'll dampen some of the more outrageous army-compositions that FoG1 had.
I still remember pantherboys Indian army fielding 97 low quality archers, and nothing else. No ammo rules back then, so any army he met simply got pelted into submission before they had a chance to stomp on all the ants.

So all in all, it looks like a giant step forward, not to mention that it looks far better than FoG1 (and yes, graphics matter, even in wargames)
It at least got me curious enough to jump back in, after the RNG debacle that was FoG1, so presumably that's something.
And just for the record I don't think FoG1 was 100% luck, not at all.
Maybe 95%

CheerfullyInsane wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:I think this game will be harder to "master"

Its harder to flank/ get in the rear, and when you do its not necessarily devastating.

FOG1 with the dice rolls allowed you to often get decisive swings of fortune on the local level where you could immediately capitalize on , especially with the more maneuverable units in that game.

Battle lines stay firmer here and if you commit all your troops, suddenly you basically became a spectator, there nothing left to maneuver. Its all about the troops now, not you! Which means you need more of a plan to stick with.

With the armies and deployment zone changes, you cant count on securing flank on the edge of the world, or engage in massive mechanised envelopements ( thru double moves)

This might sound contrary to the above but new players to FOG1 tend to get smoked in the DAG battles, until they learn the tricks of the trade.
In FOG2, sure there are blow outs with different skill but it seems players less experienced generally do better. The FOG2 mechanics seem to reward more historical play , if they use a basic solid battle line, cavalry on flanks to defend same and skirmishes up, well, that reasonably sound and will generally be effective.

There are less "tricks" ( in battle and even more importantly, the gamemanship of the army building in FOG1) in FOG2 so it much harder to devise a plan that will work versus an equally experienced foe IMHO

So, IMHO, sharper initial learning curve in FOG1, but one can rapidly close the gap if you play enough. Less obvious ways to win versus a symmetrical foe/opponent's skill in FOG2.
( and if you want to be a FOG1 hater, you can claim the game was 100% about luck)

I haven't been playing FoG2 enough to draw any firm conclusions, but on the face of it, I'd agree with TheGrayMouser.
The whole thing is a bit more predictable than FoG1, which means you have to have a plan (not necessarily a good one), whereas in FoG1 you could pretty much just fling your army at the enemy, gain an advantage in a local spot, and then exploit from there.
Or in my case, fling your army at the enemy, roll a bunch of 1's, resign and start a new game.
Yes, weird stuff still happens but at a much reduced rate. And generally it doesn't affect the whole line.

So does this make it harder to master than FoG1?
Not necessarily, if you have a basic grasp of ancient battle-tactics (such as they were).
But it does mean you have to pay a lot more attention to what you're doing, especially concerning ZOCs and how to use them properly.
Treat it like an RTS, and you will get hammered.
I also think (again, not enough experience yet) that it'll dampen some of the more outrageous army-compositions that FoG1 had.
I still remember pantherboys Indian army fielding 97 low quality archers, and nothing else. No ammo rules back then, so any army he met simply got pelted into submission before they had a chance to stomp on all the ants.

So all in all, it looks like a giant step forward, not to mention that it looks far better than FoG1 (and yes, graphics matter, even in wargames)
It at least got me curious enough to jump back in, after the RNG debacle that was FoG1, so presumably that's something.
And just for the record I don't think FoG1 was 100% luck, not at all.
Maybe 95%

I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find details on combat advantages/disadvantages. This version appears to be all luck to me as I'm getting very weird combat results. Lancers winning after charging steady pike frontally, troops losing combats after flank charging charging troops (not in contact) with a 68% predicted chance of winning?? In one game my pinning capability of foot against mounted was non-existent. Foot's response to breaking mounted opponents is also difficult to fathom. Do they follow up or not? I don't know what to expect? PS I have read the POA table on pages 80/81 but there appears to be something beyond the POA's that is determining results.

Cunningcairn wrote:I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find details on combat advantages/disadvantages. This version appears to be all luck to me as I'm getting very weird combat results. Lancers winning after charging steady pike frontally, troops losing combats after flank charging charging troops (not in contact) with a 68% predicted chance of winning?? In one game my pinning capability of foot against mounted was non-existent. Foot's response to breaking mounted opponents is also difficult to fathom. Do they pursue or not? I don't know what to expect?

Go into Settings and turn on Detailed Tooltips and Detailed Close Combat Reports (or Combat Log) and all will be revealed. Also of course the manual gives all of the information.

FOG2 is in fact significantly less random than FOG1, but things will certainly seem random if you are not fully aware of the factors involved. The above options will make those easier to learn.

rbodleyscott wrote:Go into Settings and turn on Detailed Tooltips and Detailed Close Combat Reports (or Combat Log) and all will be revealed. Also of course the manual gives all of the information.

FOG2 is in fact significantly less random than FOG1, but things will certainly seem random if you are not fully aware of the factors involved. The above options will make those easier to learn.

Having played Pike & Shot for years, and now Field of Glory II, I still play with detailed tooltips and battle reports. You are playing in the dark without them.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Cunningcairn wrote:I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find details on combat advantages/disadvantages. This version appears to be all luck to me as I'm getting very weird combat results. Lancers winning after charging steady pike frontally, troops losing combats after flank charging charging troops (not in contact) with a 68% predicted chance of winning?? In one game my pinning capability of foot against mounted was non-existent. Foot's response to breaking mounted opponents is also difficult to fathom. Do they pursue or not? I don't know what to expect?

Go into Settings and turn on Detailed Tooltips and Detailed Close Combat Reports (or Combat Log) and all will be revealed. Also of course the manual gives all of the information.

FOG2 is in fact significantly less random than FOG1, but things will certainly seem random if you are not fully aware of the factors involved. The above options will make those easier to learn.

Thanks I've done that and read the manual but it doesn't explain how lancers can (or would want to) charge steady pike frontally in good going and win or as in a current game why my superior, armoured, LSp, Sw cavalry would evade from charging MF in open terrain. The sometimes pin sometime not scenario,foot pursuing mounted opponents and the flank charge with 68% chance of winning also remains unexplained.

Cunningcairn wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Cunningcairn wrote:I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find details on combat advantages/disadvantages. This version appears to be all luck to me as I'm getting very weird combat results. Lancers winning after charging steady pike frontally, troops losing combats after flank charging charging troops (not in contact) with a 68% predicted chance of winning?? In one game my pinning capability of foot against mounted was non-existent. Foot's response to breaking mounted opponents is also difficult to fathom. Do they pursue or not? I don't know what to expect?

Go into Settings and turn on Detailed Tooltips and Detailed Close Combat Reports (or Combat Log) and all will be revealed. Also of course the manual gives all of the information.

FOG2 is in fact significantly less random than FOG1, but things will certainly seem random if you are not fully aware of the factors involved. The above options will make those easier to learn.

Thanks I've done that and read the manual but it doesn't explain how lancers can (or would want to) charge steady pike frontally in good going and win or as in a current game why my superior, armoured, LSp, Sw cavalry would evade from charging MF in open terrain. The sometimes pin sometime not scenario,foot pursuing mounted opponents and the flank charge with 68% chance of winning also remains unexplained.

In the manual under 14.5 Break Offs the last sentence reads, "Foot will break off from enemy foot if they lose badly in close combat and are not followed up." Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly but when my foot break off they are almost always followed up by the enemy foot.

Cunningcairn wrote:In the manual under 14.5 Break Offs the last sentence reads, "Foot will break off from enemy foot if they lose badly in close combat and are not followed up." Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly but when my foot break off they are almost always followed up by the enemy foot.

It depends which unit initiates the melee. If your unit charges and then is forced to fall back then the enemy unit will not follow up.

stockwellpete wrote:

Cunningcairn wrote:In the manual under 14.5 Break Offs the last sentence reads, "Foot will break off from enemy foot if they lose badly in close combat and are not followed up." Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly but when my foot break off they are almost always followed up by the enemy foot.

It depends which unit initiates the melee. If your unit charges and then is forced to fall back then the enemy unit will not follow up.

Thanks Pete! What is the case of fall back during a melee and not after a charge because this when the winning foot always appear to follow up.

Cunningcairn wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:

Cunningcairn wrote:In the manual under 14.5 Break Offs the last sentence reads, "Foot will break off from enemy foot if they lose badly in close combat and are not followed up." Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly but when my foot break off they are almost always followed up by the enemy foot.

It depends which unit initiates the melee. If your unit charges and then is forced to fall back then the enemy unit will not follow up.

Thanks Pete! What is the case of fall back during a melee and not after a charge because this when the winning foot always appear to follow up.

Same for melee. If the winner initiated the charge and if he has the propensity to follow up. Not all units follow up.