Slitherine

Hi alltogether

I wonder about a strange setup in my latest tournament game. In the screenshot I have marked my setup corridor in blue. The expected corridor for my opponent is marked in blue. In any games I had so far, the corridors were symmetric.
But this time my opponent was able to deploy a lot of units outside the initial corridor. And this are not light units.

Any ideas anyone?

Thanks for help
Gwaylare

The deployment areas are set according to the initial deployment of the force after Autodeploy. This effectively means that the larger army will have a larger deployment area.

Because I did not beleave this at all, I did a test. No I see the problem.

What you said is just true, if you look at this superficially. Here is what I feel is the implementation and the real problem.

1) The size of deployment area grows depending on the of your army, if and only if you use the Autodeploy function. Without Autodeploy you will never get this benefit and I never used Autodeploy up to now.
2) The size of deployment area does not depend on the size of your real army, just of the army when using Autodeploy. You can reduce your army after this. So size of deployment area is a constant of an army, if you know how to get it. If you do not know, you have to live with a reduced deployment area.

To give an impression here two screenshots from my recent test. The difference is significant:


To be honest, this is a **** implementation, not worthy for a competitive multiplayer game FOG II is. It is absolut ridiculous to have an automatic function, which can not be triggert manually. Strategists do not use automatic functions and you should not force them to.

Please fix this.

Best regards
Gwaylare

Manual Depoyment

Please watch your language on the forums.

Cheers

Pip

We will look into it.

Thanks Richard and sorry for bad language.

Hey Richard,

In general is it an easy ask for a more specific option for deployment zone size when creating the game? I am always torn about whether or not I like the limited deployment size. While sometimes its nice as it forces you to place your armies in interesting ways, other times it can unfunly obnoxious. Also sometimes the most interesting parts of the map are on the edges and those rarely see play in my experience. My two cents is that would be a neat thing to add the bucket list.

But it becomes unrealistic and gamey when units bunch up in one corner just to exploit some terrain. An army’s flank shouldn’t be the map edge. It works like a fake impassable terrain. If one does that, the map needs to be extended more to give space at the army’s flanks.

jomni wrote:But it becomes unrealistic and gamey when units bunch up in one corner just to exploit some terrain. An army’s flank shouldn’t be the map edge. It works like a fake impassable terrain. If one does that, the map needs to be extended more to give space at the army’s flanks.

I disagree with some of that. Not being able to pick your deployment zone can be just as gamey. Half of a battle was the commanders picking the right location to actually fight, battles were sometimes decided before the battle even began because of it. If the better terrain for you was on the side of the map you would have put your forces there. Also the current system will put you on unflankable deployment zones already due to sea or impassable stream, so that isn't really a new occurrence. Also why I said add it in as an option opposed to making it a default.

As you said, battles are decided even before the fight if one commander gets the better terrain. Therefore there is no point in playing out the battle. So battles in the game assume no one has the perfect start position and both commanders are willing to fight.

Not all edges are impassable. So in that case, both flanks in all maps should now have a mountain or water based on your suggestion.

jomni wrote:As you said, battles are decided even before the fight if one commander gets the better terrain. Therefore there is no point in playing out the battle. So battles in the game assume no one has the perfect start position and both commanders are willing to fight.

Not all edges are impassable. So in that case, both flanks in all maps should now have a mountain or water based on your suggestion.

Sure and that happens in this game already, so I don't see your point? I have loaded plenty of games where I just looked at the map and realized unless I played near perfect and my opponent messed up that I had little chance of winning. That's the beauty and danger of random terrain, sometimes RNGJesus blesses your opponent and not you.

I don't know why they would need to be? I mean look at the example that this very thread is about! The deployment zone is along the sea which is now effectively the map edge, so as I said the notion that people might deploy along the edge of the map to deny flanks is already a thing in the game effectively, thus not really a good argument against the suggestion.

Spectre195 wrote:I don't know why they would need to be? I mean look at the example that this very thread is about! The deployment zone is along the sea which is now effectively the map edge, so as I said the notion that people might deploy along the edge of the map to deny flanks is already a thing in the game effectively, thus not really a good argument against the suggestion.

Coasts and flanking rivers are there primarily for the purpose of supplying a secure flank in some maps, because some historical battlefields were like that. Not all battlefields should have available secured flanks.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Spectre195 wrote:I don't know why they would need to be? I mean look at the example that this very thread is about! The deployment zone is along the sea which is now effectively the map edge, so as I said the notion that people might deploy along the edge of the map to deny flanks is already a thing in the game effectively, thus not really a good argument against the suggestion.

Coasts and flanking rivers are there primarily for the purpose of supplying a secure flank in some maps, because some historical battlefields were like that. Not all battlefields should have available secured flanks.

Yes I understand it is currently only some maps; however my point was that would not be a novel occurrence as it is already a possibility in the game as well as adding an option for larger deployment doesn't necessarily mean the entire side of the field.

Spectre195 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Spectre195 wrote:I don't know why they would need to be? I mean look at the example that this very thread is about! The deployment zone is along the sea which is now effectively the map edge, so as I said the notion that people might deploy along the edge of the map to deny flanks is already a thing in the game effectively, thus not really a good argument against the suggestion.

Coasts and flanking rivers are there primarily for the purpose of supplying a secure flank in some maps, because some historical battlefields were like that. Not all battlefields should have available secured flanks.

Yes I understand it is currently only some maps; however my point was that would not be a novel occurrence as it is already a possibility in the game as well as adding an option for larger deployment doesn't necessarily mean the entire side of the field.

I know where you're getting at. One way to implement this is for players to choose (the currently existing) "Wide" and "Very Wide" map options when setting up. Then the deployment area will be wider than standard despite the same army size but not up to the edge. I assume Wide and Very Wide map currently does not affect the deployment area like army size.

Richard, what do you think about this suggestion?

Gwaylare wrote:Because I did not beleave this at all, I did a test. No I see the problem.

What you said is just true, if you look at this superficially. Here is what I feel is the implementation and the real problem.

1) The size of deployment area grows depending on the of your army, if and only if you use the Autodeploy function. Without Autodeploy you will never get this benefit and I never used Autodeploy up to now.
2) The size of deployment area does not depend on the size of your real army, just of the army when using Autodeploy. You can reduce your army after this. So size of deployment area is a constant of an army, if you know how to get it. If you do not know, you have to live with a reduced deployment area.

To give an impression here two screenshots from my recent test. The difference is significant:


To be honest, this is a **** implementation, not worthy for a competitive multiplayer game FOG II is. It is absolut ridiculous to have an automatic function, which can not be triggert manually. Strategists do not use automatic functions and you should not force them to.

Please fix this.

Best regards
Gwaylare

i'm strugggling t see the difficulty...
just hit autodeploy, then feel free to reorg your army as you see fit...it saves a bunch of time anyway. the auto deploy doesn't restrict you from deploying them anyway you want.

To be fair, this does actually seem like a real balance issue. People who know how to game autodeploy will have a positioning advantage over people who don't.

Thanks Ludendorf, that is exactly the problem. It is an undocumented trick.

As I say, we will look into into and sort the issue out in a future update after testing. We agree that it should be corrected. The issue hasn't really come to light before because most people use autodeploy, not as a trick to gain an advantage but simply because it is easier.

Thanks Richard